Develop Reference

JPA/Hibernate Spring boot-primary key one entity referred as an instance to other entity not working

I have generated master tables using liquibase. I have created the corresponding models in spring boot now I want to maintain a relation ship between those models.
I have one table called Vehicle_Type, it is already pre-populated using liquibase.
#Data
#Entity
#Table(name="VEHCILE_TYPE")
public class VehicleType {
#Id
private int id;
#Column(name="DISPLAY_NAME")
private String displayName;
#Column(name="TYPE")
private String type;
#Column(name="CREATED_DATE")
private LocalDateTime createdDate;
#Column(name="UPDATED_DATE")
private LocalDateTime updateDate;
}
now what I want to achieve is, I have one child entity, I have refer the VehicleType instance inside that entity as depicted below
#Data
#Entity
#EqualsAndHashCode(callSuper = true)
#Table(name = "NON_MSIL_VEHICLE_LAYOUT")
public class NonMsilVehicleLayout extends BaseImagesAndLayout {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.SEQUENCE, generator = "NMV_SEQ")
#SequenceGenerator(sequenceName = "NON_MSIL_VEH_SEQUENCE", allocationSize = 1, name = "NMV_SEQ")
private int id;
#OneToOne(cascade=CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "VEH_TYPE", referencedColumnName = "id")
private VehicleType vehicleType;
public interface VehType {
String getVehType();
}
}
The problem is when I tries to save entity NonMsilVehicleLayout, then it tries to first insert the data in VEHICLE_TYPE table also. which should not going to be happen.
I don't want that, I want JPA will pick the correct ID from VEHICLE_TYPE table and place it inside the corresponding table for NonMsilVehicleLayout, because the id of VEHICLE_TYPE table is act as foreign key in Non_Msil_Vehicle_Layout table.
log.info("Inside saveLayout::Start preparing entity to persist");
String resourceUri = null;
NonMsilVehicleLayout vehicleLayout = new NonMsilVehicleLayout();
VehicleType vehicleType=new VehicleType();
vehicleType.setType(modelCode);
vehicleLayout.setVehicleType(modelCode);
vehicleLayout.setFileName(FilenameUtils.removeExtension(FilenameUtils.getName(object.key())));
vehicleLayout.setS3BucketKey(object.key());
I know I missed something, but unable to figure it out.

You are creating a new VehicleType instance setting only the type field and set the vehicleType field of NonMsilVehicleLayout to that new instance. Since you specified CascadeType.ALL on NonMsilVehicleLayout#vehicleType, this means to Hibernate, that it has to persist the given VehicleType, because the instance has no primary key set.
I guess what you rather want is this code:
vehicleLayout.setVehicleType(
entitManager.createQuery("from VehicleType vt where vt.type = :type", VehicleType.class)
.setParameter("type", typeCode)
.getSingleResult()
);
This will load the VehicleType object by type and set that object on NonMsilVehicleLayout#vehicleType, which will then cause the foreign key column to be properly set to the primary key value.

Finally, after some workaround, I got the mistake, the column name attribute was incorrect, so I made it correct and remove the referencedColumn and Cascading.
Incorrect:
#OneToOne(cascade=CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "VEH_TYPE", referencedColumnName = "id")
private VehicleType vehicleType;
Correct:
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "VEHICLE_TYPE")
private VehicleType vehicleTypes;
also I have added the annotation #Column in the referende entity VehicleImage
public class VehicleType {
#Id
#Column(name = "ID") // added this one
private int id;
}
That bit workaround solved my problem, now I have achieved what I exactly looking for.

Long field as foreign key in JPA entities, with on-cascade Delete

I'm having issues with defining a foreign key field within an entity. One specific thing that I can't find an answer to, is how to define such field but as a Long type, and not as that target entity type, and also set it up as ON DELETE CASCADE.
E.g.
#Entity
#Table(name = "user")
public class UserEntity {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
}
and
#Entity
#Table(name = "address")
public class AddressEntity {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
#JoinColumn(
table = "user",
name = "user_id",
referencedColumnName = "id")
private Long userId;
}
This example works fine, but now one can't easily define this DELETE ON CASCADE for the userId field i.e. Address entity.

One specific thing that I can't find an answer to, is how to define
such field but as a Long type, and not as that target entity type, and
also set it up as ON DELETE CASCADE.
It stands to reason that you cannot find an answer, because JPA does not provide one. If you want JPA to manage relationships between entities, then you must define those relationships in the JPA way, with entities holding references to other entity objects and declaring appropriate relationship annotations.* And if you want cascading deletes in your persistence context then you definitely do want them to be managed / recognized by JPA, for any other kind of approach is likely to create problems involving the context falling out of sync with the underlying data store.
It's unclear what problem you are trying to solve by avoiding JPA-style relationship management, but I'm inclined to think that there must be a better way. For example, if you want to avoid requiring the persistence context to load the associated UserEntity whenever an AddressEntity is loaded, then you would define the relationship with a lazy fetch strategy:
#Entity
public class AddressEntity {
// ...
#OneToOne(optional = true, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
private UserEntity user;
}
#Entity
public class UserEntity {
// ...
#OneToOne(optional = true, fetch = FetchType.LAZY, cascade = CascadeType.ALL,
mappedBy = user)
AddressType address;
}
(Do note, however, that FetchType.LAZY is a hint, not a constraint. The context might sometimes still load the user together with its address if that's convenient.)
If you want to get the associated user id from an address, then the best way to do so is to read it from the user:
// ...
public Long getUserId() {
return (user == null) ? null : user.getId();
}
That does require the UserEntity to define an accessible getId() method, but since you are using JPA field-based access, you do not need also to provide a setter, and you may give the method default access. Or you could just declare UserEntity.id such that it is directly accessible by AddressEntity.
On the other hand, if you want to provide for the user ID to be accessible without loading the user entity then instead of a method such as the above getUserId(), in addition to the relationship field you could define a persistent, read-only AddressEntity.userId field, mapped to the appropriate column. It must be read-only because the value of the id in the underlying data store will necessarily be managed via the entity relationship, so it cannot also be managed via this separate field. For example:
#Entity
public class AddressEntity {
// ...
#OneToOne(optional = true, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
private UserEntity user;
#Column(name = "user_id", insertable = false, updatable = false, nullable = true)
public Long userId;
}
This is a brittle approach, and I do not recommend it. It will be prone to problems with the userId field falling out of sync with the user entity. That may be bearable for the usage you have in mind, but this sort of weirdness is fertile ground for future bugs.
*Side note: as far as I know or can determine, JPA does not define semantics for a #JoinColumn annotation on a non-relationship field such as in your original code. That doesn't mean that your particular persistence provider can't interpret it in a way that you characterize as "works fine", but at minimum you are on thin ice with that.

Why in this Hibernate mapping it is used #ManyToOne instead #OneToOne?

I am absolutly new in Hibernate development and I have the following problem.
I have 2 entity classes that maps 2 DB tables:
1) The first entity class (the main one) is named KM_ProjectInfo and map a DB table named KM_PROJECT.
2) The second entity class is named KM_ProjectInfoStatus and map a DB table named KM_PROJECT_INFO_STATUS.
So the second one represent a specific field of the first one (a status of the row representd by an instance of the KM_ProjectInfo class). Infact I have something like this:
1) KM_ProjectInfo class:
#Entity
#Table(name = "KM_PROJECT")
public class KM_ProjectInfo implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long idProjectInfo;
#Column(name = "name")
private String name;
#Column(name = "technology")
private String technology;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "idCountry")
private KMCountry country;
#Column(name = "power")
private long power;
#Column(name = "cod")
private String cod;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "idProjectInfoStatus")
private KM_ProjectInfoStatus status;
// GETTERS & SETTERS
}
2) KM_ProjectInfoStatus:
#Entity
#Table(name = "KM_PROJECT_INFO_STATUS")
public class KM_ProjectInfoStatus implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long idProjectInfoStatus;
#Column(name = "foldertech")
private Long foldertech;
#Column(name = "folderproject")
private Long folderproject;
// GETTERS & SETTERS
}
So, as you can see in the previous snippet, the KM_ProjectInfoStatuss is a field of the KM_ProjectInfo because I want that it contains the primary key of this table as foreign key.
In the logic of my application I want that at one row of the KM_PROJECT table (so at one instance of the KM_ProjectInfo entity class) is associated a single row of the KM_PROJECT_INFO_STATUS (one instance of the KM_ProjectInfoStatus entity class) because it represent a specific status for the KM_PROJECT row.
In my code I have:
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "idProjectInfoStatus")
private KM_ProjectInfoStatus status;
but I think that is wrong because at one row of my first table it is associated a specific single row of the second table. But maybe I am missing something about how Hibernate work.
Can you help me to understand what I am missing? What it work? Why I have #ManyToOne instead #OneToOne?
Tnx

It all depends on how you want to model things. In terms of Database structure, OneToOne and ManyToOne are implemented in the same way:
One or more JoinColumns which makes a foreign key pointing to the primary key of the other table.
So both solutions correctly map to your database, but it depends if you want to allow several KM_ProjectInfo to point to the same KM_ProjectInfoStatus, or only allow a single one.
Note that, even though you would declare a OneToOne, you could still end up with multiple KM_ProjectInfo pointing to the same KM_ProjectInfoStatus if you don't manipulate Hibernate properly.
Here you did not declare the reverse relationship, but if you did, the declaration would have to be different:
In case of a OneToOne, you would have a KM_ProjectInfo member
In case of a OneToMany (reverse of ManyToOne), you would have a Collection<KM_ProjectInfo> member

From the description it seems you want to have one-to-one relationship. That is the project entity should have its very own status not shared by any other project. You could achieve this by using #OneToOne as below.
#Entity
#Table(name = "KM_PROJECT")
public class KM_ProjectInfo implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long idProjectInfo;
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "idProjectInfoStatus")
private KM_ProjectInfoStatus status;
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "KM_PROJECT_INFO_STATUS")
public class KM_ProjectInfoStatus implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long idProjectInfoStatus;
#OneToOne(mappedBy="idProjectInfoStatus")
private KM_ProjectInfo project;
}
This way you can have specific status for the KM_PROJECT.
Coming back to #ManyToOne, you will want to have this if you want to share the same status with multiple projects, but that's not what you want in your case. I have tried to explain mappings in simple way here One-to-One mapping.

Java/Hibernate/JPA: cannot persist with compound key -> transient object

my problem is that I cannot save my entity because it contains another entity, mapped by a key that is also a part of this table's primary key. The table looks like this:
table C:
+-----+------+
| id_A | id_B |
+-----+------+
..where idA is the primary key of table A with EntityA and idB the primary key of table B with EntityB.
so its basically a n-to-m relation. This is the entity I'm using for table C:
#Entity
public class EntityC {
private long idA;
private EntityB b;
#Id
#Column(name = "id_A")
public long getIdA() {
return idA;
}
#Id
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "id_B")
public EntityB getB() {
return b;
}
...setters are here...
}
Please note that id_A is mapped as is (the id), while id_B is mapped as its object representation, EntityB. This is what I want to do with it:
EntityC c = new EntityC();
c.setIdA(123);
c.setB(new EntityB());
em.persist(c);
tx.commit();
em.close();
I want to persist EntityB ONLY IF I can persist EntityC.
on tx.commit() I get this exception: org.hibernate.TransientObjectException: object references an unsaved transient instance
I suppose this happens because part of the primary key, id_B, is not saved. But i set cascading to all so there should be no problem!
Why is this not working?
EDIT:
When I do this:
em.persist(c.getB());
em.persist(c);
it works. But can't Hibernate/JPA do that automatically? I thought that's what cascading is good for.
EDIT2:
added an embeddedId instead of id_A and id_B:
#Embeddable
public class EntityCID implements Serializable {
public long idA;
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "id_B", referencedColumnName = "id")
public EntryB b;
}
EntityC now looks like:
#Entity
public class EntityC implements Serializable {
private EntityCID id;
...
#EmbeddedId
public void getId() {
return id;
}
}
but I still get the transient object exception if I don't em.persist(c.getId().b); before em.persist(c). Sticking to that, although it is ugly.
#Trein: it is not bidirectional. EntityB code:
#Entity
public class EntityB implements Serializable {
public long id;
public String text;
}

If you think about it what you are seeing makes perfect sense.
EntityC is is the 'owning side' of the relationship C<>B: it defines the JoinColumn and EntityB has the 'mappedBy' attribute.
So on saving C, order of events would normally be:
insert into C/update C
insert into B/update B
Now in your case this causes issues as obviously C can only be saved if B has been persisted first.
In terms of your statement above: I want to persist "EntityB ONLY IF I can persist EntityC." How can this ever be the case?
JPA has a concept of 'Derived Identifiers', which I am not overly familiar with however is defined in the book Pro JPA as occurring when:
When an identifier in one entity includes a foreign key to another
entity, we call it a derived identifier. Because the entity containing
the derived identifier depends upon another entity for its identity,
we call the first the dependent entity. The entity that it depends
upon is the target of a many-to-one or one-toone relationship from the
dependent entity, and is called the parent entity
Now, despite the original advice that you had two #Id attributes defined and this was wrong it would however appear that having an additional #Id on a 1-2-m is in fact valid in JPA 2 for precisely this case.
The book gives a number of ways of dealing with Derived Identifiers however one example given below looks fairly similar to your case. So you may want to investigate further the #MapsId attribute.
#Entity
public class Project {
#EmbeddedId private ProjectId id;
#MapsId("dept")
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumns({
#JoinColumn(name="DEPT_NUM", referencedColumnName="NUM"),
#JoinColumn(name="DEPT_CTRY", referencedColumnName="CTRY")})
private Department department;
// ...
}
#Embeddable
public class ProjectId implements Serializable {
#Column(name="P_NAME")
private String name;
#Embedded
private DeptId dept;
// ...
}
See further:
How do I properly cascade save a one-to-one, bidirectional relationship on primary key in Hibernate 3.6

Is it a bidirectional relationship? I would suggest you to remove #Id getB() and perform the modifications:
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, mappedBy = "id_B")
#PrimaryKeyJoinColumn(name = "id_B")
public EntityB getB() {
return b;
}
Your entity class must have only one attribute annotated with #Id. Usually when you need this, you create a class that will store both properties and this will act as a Id Class.

You can not pass new Entity() for reference. Because it won't have any values in it(even primary key). So how can hibernate will insert it as foreign key to the table. And cascade will save your parent object if its not saved,no need to call save method for all. But when you passing new object it won't do.

Hibernate and JPA: how to make a foreign key constraint on a String

I am using Hibernate and JPA. If I have two simple entities:
#Entity
#Table(name = "container")
public class Container {
#Id
#Column(name="guid")
private String guid;
}
#Entity
#Table(name="item")
public class Item {
#Id
#Column(name="guid")
private String guid;
#Column(name="container_guid")
private String containerGuid;
}
and I want to insure that inserting an Item fails if the referenced Container does not exist. I would prefer not to have a Container object populated inside the item object (ManyToOne), how would I do this if it is possible to do?

You can declare arbitrary constraint using columnDefinition attribute:
#Column(name="container_guid",
columnDefinition = "VARCHAR(255) REFERENCES container(guid)")
private String containerGuid;
Note, however, that Hibernate doesn't know anything about this constraint, so that, for example, it may not perform inserts in proper order with respect of it and so on.
Therefore it would be better to create a #ManyToOne relationship. If you are afraid of extra SQL query for Container needed to set this property, you can use Session.load()/EntityManager.getReference() to get a proxy without issuing actulal query.

Try using below relationship mapping
RelationShip Mapping
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#ManyToOne()
#ManyToMany()
<>
#JoinColumn(name="<>")