It's not exactly as the title says, but close to. Consider these Spring beans:
#Bean
class BeanA {
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED, rollbackFor = EvilException.class)
public void methodA() {
/* ... some actions */
if (condition) {
throw new EvilException();
}
}
}
#Bean
class BeanB {
#Autowired private BeanA beanA;
final int MAX_TRIES = 3;
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.NESTED)
public void methodB() {
// prepare to call Bean A
try {
beanA.methodA();
/* maybe do some more things */
}
catch (EvilException e) {
/* recover from evil */
}
}
}
#Bean
class MainWorkerBean {
#Autowired private BeanB beanB;
#Autowired private OtherBean otherBean;
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED)
public void doSomeWork() {
beanB.methodB();
otherBean.doSomeWork();
}
}
Important note: I'm using JDBC transaction manager that supports savepoints.
What I'm expecting this to do is, when EvilException is thrown, the transaction of the BeanA is rolled back, which with this setup happens to be the savepoint created by starting methodB. However, this appears to not be the case.
When going over with debugging tools, what I'm seeing is this:
When doSomeWork of MainWorkerBean starts, new transaction is created
When methodB starts, transaction manager properly initializes a savepoint and hands it to TransactionInterceptor
When methodA starts, transaction manager sees Propagation.REQUIRED again, and hands out a clean reference to the actual JDBC transaction again, that has no knowledge of the savepoint
This means that when exception is thrown, TransactionStatus::hasSavepoint return false, which leads to roll back of the whole global transaction, so recovery and further steps are as good as lost, but my actual code has no knowledge of the rollback (since I've written recovery for it).
For now, I can't consider changing BeanA's transaction to Propagation.NESTED. Admittedly, looks like it's going to allow me to have the more local rollback, but it's going to be too local, because as I understand it, Spring then will have two savepoints, and only roll back the BeanA savepoint, not BeanB one, as I'd like.
Is there anything else I'm missing, such as a configuration option, that would make internal transaction with Propagation.REQUIRED consider that it is running inside a savepoint, and roll back to savepoint, not the whole thing?
Right now we're using Spring 4.3.24, but I already crawled through their code and can't spot any relevant changes, so I don't think upgrading will help me.
As described in this bug ticket: https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/issues/11234
For spring versions < 5.0, in the situation described, the global transaction is set to 'rollback-only'.
In this transaction I am processing several tasks. If an error should occur during a single task, I do not want the whole transaction to be rolled back, therefore I wrap the task processing in another transaction boundary with a propagation of PROPAGATION_NESTED.
The problem comes when, during task processing, calls are made to existing service methods defined with a transaction boundary of PROPAGATION_REQUIRED. Any runtime exceptions thrown from these methods cause the underlying connection to be marked as rollback-only, rather than respecting the current parent transaction nested propagation.
[...]
As of Spring Framework 5.0, nested transactions resolve their rollback-only status on a rollback to a savepoint, not applying it to the global transaction anymore.
On older versions, the recommended workaround is to switch globalRollbackOnParticipationFailure to false in such scenarios.
However, even for Spring5, I noticed when reproducing the problem, that the nested transaction may be rolled back, including all things done in the catch block of methodB(). So your recover code might not work inside methodB(), depending on what your recovery looks like. If methodA() was not transactional, that would not happen. Just something to watch out for.
Some more details to be found here: https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/issues/8135
Related
I'm working with a DB2 database and tested following code:
no matter methodB has Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW or not, if methodB has exception, methodA's result will be committed correctly regardless.
This is against my assumption that Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW must be used to achieve this.
ClassA
#Autowire
private ClassB classB;
#Transactional
methodA(){
...
try{
classB.methodB();
}catch(RuntimeException ex){
handleException(ex);
}
...
}
ClassB
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW)
methodB(){...}
Thanks for #Kayaman I think I figured it out now.
The behaviour I saw is because methodB's #Transactional annotation didn't work, so methodB is treated as a normal function without any transaction annotation.
Where it went wrong is that in methodA, I called methodB from a subclasss of ClassB by super.methodB() and thought that it will give a transactional methodB, which isn't working:
#Service
#Primary
ClassC extends ClassB{
#override
methodB(){
super.methodB();
}
}
I know that transaction annotation will not work if you call a transaction method from another non-transactional method of the same class.
Didn't know that super.methodB() will also fail for the same reason (anyone can give a bit more explanation pls?)
In conclusion, in the example of the first block of code, when methodB has RuntimeException,
If methodB has NO transaction annotation: A & B share the same transaction; methodA will NOT rollback
if methodB has REQUIRED annotation: A & B share the same transaction; methodA will rollback
if methodB has REQUIRES_NEW annotation: A & B have separate transactions; methodA will NOT rollback
Without REQUIRES_NEW (i.e. the default REQUIRED or one of the others that behaves in a similar way), ClassB.methodB() participates in the same transaction as ClassA.methodA(). An exception in in methodB() will mark that same transaction to be rolled back. Even if you catch the exception, the transaction will be rolled back.
With REQUIRES_NEW, the transaction rolled back will be particular to methodB(), so when you catch the exception, there's still the healthy original non-rolled back transaction in existence.
ClassA
#Transactional
methodA(){
try{
classB.methodB();
}catch(RuntimeException ex){
handleException(ex);
}
}
ClassB
#Transactional
methodB(){
throw new RuntimeException();
}
The above code will rollback the whole transaction. With propagation=TransactionPropagation.REQUIRES_NEW for methodB() it will not.
Without any annotation for methodB(), there will be only one tx boundary at methodA() level and Spring will not be aware that an exception is thrown, since it's caught in the middle of the method. This is similar to inlining the contents of methodB() to methodA(). If that exception is a non-database exception (e.g. NullPointerException), the transaction will commit normally. If that exception is a database exception, the underlying database transaction is set to be rolled back, but Spring isn't aware of that. Spring then tries to commit, and throws an UnexpectedRollbackException, because the database won't allow the tx to be committed.
Leaving the annotation out explicitly or accidentally is wrong. If you intend to perform db operations you must be working with a well defined transaction context, and know your propagation.
Calling super.methodB() bypasses Spring's normal proxying mechanism, so even though there is an annotation, it's ignored. Finally, calling super.methodB() seems like a design smell to me. Using inheritance to cut down on lines is often bad practice, and in this case caused a serious bug.
I have a main DB handler method, which calls other methods, which are also working with BD things.
I put #Transactional annotation for the main method, because I want to roll back everything, if something goes wrong.
My question is: should I put this annotation also for the submethods, or it will know that the submethods were called from a method which is transactional.
For example, in the deleting method an exception occurs, how can I make sure that the writing part will be also rollbacked:
#Transactional
public void maintDbTings() {
writing();
deleting();
}
#Transactional //do I need this?
public void writing() {
//no exceptions
}
#Transactional //do I need this?
public void deleting() {
//exception occurs
}
Spring begins a transaction when it encounters a method annotated with #Transactional. The transaction’s scope
covers the execution of that method, the execution of any methods that method invokes, and
so on, until the method returns. Any managed resources that are covered by the configured
PlatformTransactionManager and that you use during the transaction scope participate in the
transaction. For example, if you use the org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.DataSourceTransactionManager, a Connection retrieved from the linked DataSource
participates in the transaction automatically.
The transaction terminates one of two ways: Either the method completes execution directly and the transaction manager commits the transaction, or the method throws an exception and the transaction manager rolls the transaction back.
I hope it is clear now.
In plain english, when you have this:
#Transactional
public void maintDbTings() {
writing();
}
#Transactional //do I need this?
public void writing() {
//no exceptions
}
And call mainDbTings, the #Transactional on the writing has no effect. Meaning that the transaction that was started for mainDbThings will still be present/open in writing. So in this case you can easily drop it.
On the other hand since writing is public someone might call it expecting it to be transactional, since it is a service class most probably. In this case making writing to be #Transactional is mandatory and you can't drop it.
So it's up your needs really.
You can use propagation properties like REQUIRED, REQUIRES_NEW, NESTED according to your requirement as described in the below link:
http://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/4.2.x/spring-framework-reference/html/transaction.html
I have a Spring and hibernate application (both latest version) and I have 2 beans as mentioned below
#Component
public class Bean1{
#Autowired
Bean2 bean2;
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED)
public void foo()
{
bean2.bar();
}
#Component
public class Bean2{
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW)
public void bar()
{
try{
// Do something which throws exception
}
catch (Exception e) {
log & eat the exception here only.
But inspite of this the outer transaciton gets rolled back
}
}
The issue is that when bean2.bar causes any exception (e.g. foreign Key ConstraintViolationException) then it rolls back the outer transaction as well saying " Transaction rolled back because it has been marked as rollback-only","moreInfo":""}"
On seeing hibernate logs I found only one line for "new transaction"
D| o.s.o.h.HibernateTransactionManager- Creating new transaction with name ... PROPAGATION_REQUIRED,ISOLATION_DEFAULT; ''
which means no new transaction is getting created for the inner bean2.bar();
I am not able to find out what's wrong here? Any help is greatly appreciated.
REQUIRES_NEW applies to JTA transaction Managers only.
Refer Spring Doc here
REQUIRES_NEW
public static final Propagation REQUIRES_NEW
Execute non-transactionally, suspend the current transaction if one
exists. Analogous to EJB transaction attribute of the same name. Note:
Actual transaction suspension will not work on out-of-the-box on all
transaction managers. This in particular applies to
JtaTransactionManager, which requires the
javax.transaction.TransactionManager to be made available it to it
(which is server-specific in standard J2EE).
In Spring how can we make sure that certain operations are always executed together. If any one of them fails, the entire transaction needs to be rolled back. I searched this a lot and found #Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED) annotations and TransactionTemplate.execute() methods close to my problem. Kindly clarify and help.
Both #Transactional and TransactionTemplate ensure atomicity. #Transactional is for declarative transaction management, TransactionTemplate is for programmatic transaction management. You should choose one.
The idea of transaction propagation applies only to declarative transaction management and defines a transaction behaviour when it is executed in more than one method. Note that Propagation.REQUIRED is default for Transactional.propagation. It means Support a current transaction (that is if a transaction was already started in the calling method) or create a new one if none exists.
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED
May solve your problem.
Suppose in your Impl there is a method Excecute.Inside Excecute method there are other M1(),M2(),M3(),M4(),M5() methods.
May be you trying to say if for M1(),M2().M3().M4() methods Db operation succedded and at last for M5() it throws some exception then M1() to M5() all db operation should be rollback
Execute(){
M1();
M2();
M3();
M4();
M5();
if(Any error in any methods transaction will be roll back).As single trasaction object is used for all methods i.e(M1 to M5) when #Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED is used.
}
You can create a single method that delegates to the two database calls and annotate that with #Transactional, e.g.
#Transactional
public void atomicOperation(...) {
dbCall();
logicOperation();
}
If either one fails, e.g. an exception is thrown, the entire operation will rollback. The Spring Reference Documentation has dedicated a chapter for transactions, for example there is information about #Transactional settings and Transaction propagation.
All I know about this exception is from Spring's documentation and some forum posts with frostrated developers pasting huge stack traces, and no replies.
From Spring's documentation:
Thrown when an attempt to commit a transaction resulted in an unexpected rollback
I want to understand once and for all
Exactly what causes it?
Where did the rollback occur? in the App Server code or in the Database?
Was it caused due to a specific underlying exception (e.g. something from java.sql.*)?
Is it related to Hibernate? Is it related to Spring Transaction Manager (non JTA in my case)?
How to avoid it? is there any best practice to avoid it?
How to debug it? it seems to be hard to reproduce, any proven ways to troubleshoot it?
I found this to be answering the rest of question: https://jira.springsource.org/browse/SPR-3452
I guess we need to differentiate
between 'logical' transaction scopes
and 'physical' transactions here...
What PROPAGATION_REQUIRED creates is a
logical transaction scope for each
method that it gets applied to. Each
such logical transaction scope can
individually decide on rollback-only
status, with an outer transaction
scope being logically independent from
the inner transaction scope. Of
course, in case of standard
PROPAGATION_REQUIRED behavior, they
will be mapped to the same physical
transaction. So a rollback-only marker
set in the inner transaction scope
does affect the outer transaction's
chance to actually commit. However,
since the outer transaction scope did
not decide on a rollback itself, the
rollback (silently triggered by the
inner transaction scope) comes
unexpected at that level - which is
why an UnexpectedRollbackException
gets thrown.
PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW, in contrast,
uses a completely independent
transaction for each affected
transaction scope. In that case, the
underlying physical transactions will
be different and hence can commit or
rollback independently, with an outer
transaction not affected by an inner
transaction's rollback status.
PROPAGATION_NESTED is different again
in that it uses a single physical
transaction with multiple savepoints
that it can roll back to. Such partial
rollbacks allow an inner transaction
scope to trigger a rollback for its
scope, with the outer transaction
being able to continue the physical
transaction despite some operations
having been rolled back. This is
typically mapped onto JDBC savepoints,
so will only work with JDBC resource
transactions (Spring's
DataSourceTransactionManager).
To complete the discussion:
UnexpectedRollbackException may also
be thrown without the application ever
having set a rollback-only marker
itself. Instead, the transaction
infrastructure may have decided that
the only possible outcome is a
rollback, due to constraints in the
current transaction state. This is
particularly relevant with XA
transactions.
As I suggested above, throwing an
exception at the inner transaction
scope, then catching that exception at
the outer scope and translating it
into a silent setRollbackOnly call
there should work for your scenario. A
caller of the outer transaction will
never see an exception then. Since you
only worry about such silent rollbacks
because of special requirements
imposed by a caller, I would even
argue that the correct architectural
solution is to use exceptions within
the service layer, and to translate
those exceptions into silent rollbacks
at the service facade level (right
before returning to that special
caller).
Since your problem is possibly not
only about rollback exceptions, but
rather about any exceptions thrown
from your service layer, you could
even use standard exception-driven
rollbacks all the way throughout you
service layer, and then catch and log
such exceptions once the transaction
has already completed, in some
adapting service facade that
translates your service layer's
exceptions into UI-specific error
states.
Juergen
Scroll a little more back in the log (or increase it's buffer-size) and you will see what exactly caused the exception.
If it happens not to be there, check the getMostSpecificCause() and getRootCause() methods of UnexpectedRollbackException- they might be useful.
Well I can tell you how to reproduce the UnexpectedRollbackException. I was working on my project, and I got this UnexpectedRollbackException in following situation. I am having controller, service and dao layers in my project.
What I did is in my service layer class,
class SomeServiceClass {
void outerTransaction() {
// some lines of code
innerTransaction();
//AbstractPlatformTransactionManager tries to commit but UnexpectedRollbackException is thrown, not here but in controller layer class that uses SomeServiceClass.
}
void innerTransaction() {
try {
// someDaoMethod or someDaoOperation that throws exception
} catch(Exception e) {
// when exception is caught, transaction is rolled back, outer transaction does not know about it.
// I got this point where inner transaction gets rolled back when I set HibernateTransactionManager.setFailEarlyOnGlobalRollbackOnly(true)
// FYI : use of following second dao access is wrong,
try {
// again some dao operation
} catch(Exception e1) {
throw e2;
}
}
}
}
I had this problem with Spring Framework 4 + Java 1.8 for this exception.
I solved it.
😊
I know that runtime exceptions rollbacks.
But in my case, project do not use runtime exceptions.
For example, we have code.
#Transactional
#Service
UserFacadeIml implements UserFacade
{
#Autowired
private UserService userService;
//throws UnexpectedRollbackException
//instead NotRuntimeEx
#Override
public void saveUser(User user)
throws NotRuntimeEx
{
return userService.saveUser(user);
}
}
I solved it, when add "Transactional(rollBackFor=NotRuntimeEx.class)" for facade.
It works, because Spring use proxy for facade and proxy for service.
When transactional rollback, proxy of service send context to facade.
But facade proxy does not understand, why transaction rollback.
#Transactional(rollBackFor=NotRuntimeEx.class)
#Service
UserServiceIml implements UserService
{
#Override
public void saveUser(User user)
throws NotRuntimeEx
{
throw new NotRuntimeEx(user);
}
}