Develop Reference

Spring Data JPA - Named query ignoring null parameters

I have the following repository:
#Repository
public interface EntityRepository extends JpaRepository<Entity, Long> {
List<Entity> findAllByFirstId(Long firstId);
List<Entity> findAllBySecondId(Long secondId);
List<Entity> findAllByFirstIdAndSecondId(Long firstId, Long secondId);
}
The constructor implementing an interface generated with io.swagger:swagger-codegen-maven-plugin uses Optional<Long> as optional request parameters (the underlying service uses also the same parameters):
ResponseEntity<List<Entity>> entities(Optional<Long> firstId, Optional<Long> secondId);
I would like to filter the entities based on the parameters firstId and secondId which are never nulls at the database but can be passed through the constructor (the parameter for searching is optional).
The problem comes with the named queries when the null is passed as the parameter is optional, the JpaReposotory uses the null as a criterion for the searching in the database. That's what I don't want - I want to ignore the filtering based on this parameter as long as it is null.
My workaround solution based on Optional is:
public List<Entity> entities(Optional<Long> firstId, Optional<Long> secondId) {
return firstId
.or(() -> secondId)
.map(value -> {
if (firstId.isEmpty()) {
return entityRepository.findAllBySecondId(value);
}
if (secondId.isEmpty()) {
return entityRepository.findAllByFirstId(value);
}
return entityRepository.findAllByFirstIdAndSecondId(
firstId.get(), secondId.get());
})
.orElse(entityRepository.findAll())
.stream()
.map(...) // Mapping between DTO and entity. For sake of brevity
// I used the same onject Entity for both controler and repository
// as long as it not related to the question
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
This issue has been already asked: Spring Data - ignore parameter if it has a null value and a ticket created DATAJPA-209.
As long as the question is almost 3 years old and the ticket dates back to 2012, I would like to ask if there exists a more comfortable and universal way to avoid the overhead of handling the Optional and duplicating the repository methods. The solution for 2 such parameters looks acceptable, however I'd like to implement the very same filtering for 4-5 parameters.

You need Specification utility class like this
public class EntitySpecifications {
public static Specification<Entity> firstIdEquals(Optional<Long> firstId) {// or Long firstId. It is better to avoid Optional method parameters.
return (root, query, builder) ->
firstId.isPresent() ? // or firstId != null if you use Long method parameter
builder.equal(root.get("firstId"), firstId.get()) :
builder.conjunction(); // to ignore this clause
}
public static Specification<Entity> secondIdEquals(Optional<Long> secondId) {
return (root, query, builder) ->
secondId.isPresent() ?
builder.equal(root.get("secondId"), secondId.get()) :
builder.conjunction(); // to ignore this clause
}
}
Then your EntityRepository have to extend JpaSpecificationExecutor
#Repository
public interface EntityRepository
extends JpaRepository<Entity, Long>, JpaSpecificationExecutor<Entity> {
}
Usage:
#Service
public class EntityService {
#Autowired
EntityRepository repository;
public List<Entity> getEntities(Optional<Long> firstId, Optional<Long> secondId) {
Specification<Entity> spec =
Specifications.where(EntitySpecifications.firstIdEquals(firstId)) //Spring Data JPA 2.0: use Specification.where
.and(EntitySpecifications.secondIdEquals(secondId));
return repository.findAll(spec);
}
}

The io.swagger:swagger-codegen-maven-plugin generates them as
Optional since I request them as not required (required: false by
default). I might generate them as boxed types, such as Long, …
It’s probably partly a matter of taste. If it were me and I could, I’d go for the version without Optional. I don’t think they contribute anything useful here.
public List<Entity> entities(Long firstId, Long secondId) {
List<Dto> dtos;
if (firstId == null) {
if (secondId == null) {
dtos = entityRepository.findAll();
} else {
dtos = entityRepository.findAllBySecondId(secondId);
}
} else {
if (secondId == null) {
dtos = entityRepository.findAllByFirstId(firstId);
} else {
dtos = entityRepository.findAllByFirstIdAndSecondId(firstId, secondId);
}
}
return dtos.stream()
.map(...)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
The Optional class was designed to be used for return values that may be absent, not really for anything else, so I have read. I think there are rare situations where I’d use them for something else, but this is not one of them.

I'd suggest you to use specifications instead. See documentation and examples here.
Briefly, the idea is following. For each attribute you define a specification. Then check each attribute in your search criteria and if it is not null add corresponding specification to the "concatenated" specification. Then you search using this "concatenated" specification.

How to modify atributes of a Mono object without blocking it in Spring boot

I have recently started using reactive and created a simple application which uses reactive streams.
I have the following code which I get an employee by empID. I have to provide extra details about the emplyee to my API only if it is specifically requested when showExtraDetails boolean is set to true. If it's set to false I have to set extra details to null before returning the employee object. Right now I am using a a block on the stream to achieve this. Is it possible to do this without block so my method can return a Mono.
Following is the code I have done.
public Employee getEmployee(String empID, boolean showExtraDetails) {
Query query = new Query();
query.addCriteria(Criteria.where("empID").is(empID));
Employee employee = reactiveMongoTemplate.findOne(query, Employee.class, COLLECTION_NAME).block();
if (employee != null) {
logger.info("employee {} found", empID);
}
if (employee != null && !showExtraDetails) {
employee.getDetails().setExtraDetails(null);
}
return employee;
}

Try this, should work like this, assuming reactiveMongoTemplate is your mongo repository
return reactiveMongoTemplate.findById(empID).map(employee -> {
if (!showExtraDetails) {
employee.getDetails().setExtraDetails(null);
}
return employee;
});

In Hibernate why does saveOrUpdate give an exception when object already exists in database

Previously, when I was adding a entity to database with Hibernate I used to check that it hadn't already been added. But in an effort to improve performance I forgot this check and just tried to add without checking, as I was using saveOrUpdate() it was my understanding that if Hibernate found it was already added it would just update with and changes made by my save.
But instead it fails with
18/08/2018 21.58.34:BST:Errors:addError:SEVERE: Adding Error:Database Error:Row was updated or deleted by another transaction (or unsaved-value mapping was incorrect) : [com.jthink.songlayer.MusicBrainzReleaseWrapper#95f6f584-407f-4b26-9572-bb8c6e9c580a]
java.lang.Exception
at com.jthink.songkong.analyse.general.Errors.addError(Errors.java:28)
at com.jthink.songkong.exception.ExceptionHandling.handleHibernateException(ExceptionHandling.java:209)
at com.jthink.songkong.db.ReleaseCache.addToDatabase(ReleaseCache.java:394)
at com.jthink.songkong.db.ReleaseCache.add(ReleaseCache.java:65)
#Entity
public class MusicBrainzReleaseWrapper
{
#Id
private String guid;
#Version
private int version;
#org.hibernate.annotations.Index(name = "IDX__MUSICBRAINZ_RELEASE_WRAPPER_NAME")
#Column(length = 1000)
private String name;
#Lob
#Column(length = 512000)
private String xmldata;
public String getGuid()
{
return guid;
}
public void setGuid(String guid)
{
this.guid = guid;
}
public String getName()
{
return name;
}
public void setName(String name)
{
this.name = name;
}
public String getXmldata()
{
return xmldata;
}
public void setXmldata(String xmldata)
{
this.xmldata = xmldata;
}
}
private static boolean addToDatabase(Release release)
{
Session session = null;
try
{
session = HibernateUtil.beginTransaction();
//Marshall to String
StringWriter sw = new StringWriter();
Marshaller m = jc.createMarshaller();
m.marshal(release, sw);
sw.flush();
MusicBrainzReleaseWrapper wrapper = new MusicBrainzReleaseWrapper();
wrapper.setGuid(release.getId());
wrapper.setName(release.getTitle().toLowerCase(Locale.UK));
wrapper.setXmldata(sw.toString());
session.saveOrUpdate(wrapper);
session.getTransaction().commit();
MainWindow.logger.info("Added to db release:" + release.getId() + ":" + release.getTitle());
return true;
}
catch (ConstraintViolationException ce)
{
MainWindow.logger.warning("Release already exists in db:"+release.getId()+":"+release.getTitle());
return true;
}
catch(GenericJDBCException jde)
{
MainWindow.logger.log(Level.SEVERE, "Failed:" +jde.getMessage());
ExceptionHandling.handleDatabaseException(jde);
}
catch(HibernateException he)
{
MainWindow.logger.log(Level.SEVERE, "Failed:" +he.getMessage());
ExceptionHandling.handleHibernateException(he);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
MainWindow.logger.log(Level.WARNING,"Failed AddReleaseToDatabase:"+release.getId()+ ':' +e.getMessage(),e);
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
finally
{
HibernateUtil.closeSession(session);
}
return false;
}
Used to check first before call to addToDatabase
if(ReleaseCache.get(release.getId())==null)
{
addToDatabase(release)
}

Hiberante object has 3 states for an Entity. They are:
- Transient Or New
- Detached (Objects are fetched from DB and hibernate session is closed)
- Persistent (Object are fetched from DB and hibernate session is open)
In saveOrUpdate method, it either save the transient object or update the detached/ persistent object.
In your code, you are trying to create Transient/New object and setting the old id in it. That's the reason you are getting above error. The correct way to fetch the object first using id and then update it.

The problem you are hitting is directly related to the Optimistic locking you have enabled through the #Version annotation on the MusicBrainzReleaseWrapper. saveOrUpdate really can either add or update an entity but this is only if the entity version is the same as the one of the detached object you are trying to add or merge.
In your particular example your detached object has a version previous to the last version in the database therefore the operation can not be executed on a stale data.
UPDATE:
MusicBrainzReleaseWrapper wrapper = session.get(release.getId()):
//the wrapper is managed object
if (wrapper == null) {
//initilize wrapper with the values from release
.......
session.save(wrapper)
}
else {
// do not set ID here. ID is aready present!!!
// never manuay set the version field here
wrapper.setName(release.getTitle().toLowerCase(Locale.UK));
wrapper.setXmldata(sw.toString());
session.saveOrUpdate(wrapper);
//In case you don't need update logic at all
// remove the #Version field from the entity
// and do othing in the else clause , or throw exception
// or log error or anything you see fit
}

No. saveOrUpdate method is used either to persist or merge an entity with the current session. It doesn't do what you expect. Either save or update entity is application's specific logic. Hibernate doesn't do any application's specific logic.

Session.merge() can directly save a previously unknown instance, but note it won't necessarily avoid the extra select against the database.
#Pavan is right about the entity being transient or detached in Hibernate (or JPA) terminology. Both of these states mean that Hibernate has not yet got a reference to this instance of the entity in its session (in the StatefulPersistenceContext), but detached clearly means it is known to the database.
merge() instructs Hibernate to stop and check for a detached instance. The first check is for the #Id value in the session, but if it's not already there, it must hit the database.
saveOrUpdate() instructs Hibernate that the caller knows it is safe to only check the StatefulPersistenceContext for the #Id. If it's not there, the entity is assumed to be transient (i.e. new), and Hibernate will proceed to the insert operation.
saveOrUpdate() is good for instances (with or without an #Id value) that are known to the session already.
In your case clearly Hibernate is unaware of the detached instance, so you would need to use merge(). But that also means Hibernate has to check the database for the instance it hasn't seen before - if the entity has an #Id value.
To come back to the original intent in your question, update without select is harder ...
For an update, Hibernate likes to know the prior state of the entity. This makes sense if it's using dynamic updates (so not updating all columns), but otherwise you would think it could go straight for the update. The only option I know of for this is a direct update query (via HQL or JPQL), but this is hardly convenient if you have an entity instance. Maybe someone else knows how to do this.

Separate database model from Network model

Im using GreenDAO and Volley. So I have the following problem: When I make a network request I need to parse with GSON so I have a model to represent entities retrieved from server and other model to represent the GreenDAO objects. Is there any way to only have 1 class per model to represent as a GSON and a Class of ORM?
class Product:
#SerializedName("id")
private String id;
#SerializedName("pictures")
private List<Picture> pictures;
get & set
class PersistentProduct:
private Long id;
private List<Picture> pictures;
/** To-many relationship, resolved on first access (and after reset). Changes to to-many relations are not persisted, make changes to the target entity. */
public List<PersistencePicture> getPictures() {
if (pictures == null) {
if (daoSession == null) {
throw new DaoException("Entity is detached from DAO context");
}
PersistencePictureDao targetDao = daoSession.getPersistencePictureDao();
List<PersistencePicture> picturesNew = targetDao._queryPersistenceProduct_Pictures(id);
synchronized (this) {
if(pictures == null) {
pictures = picturesNew;
}
}
}
return pictures;
}
First I thought to make a Interface, but when you retrieve the data from a DAO the DAO returns the class and not the interface, so I think cannot do in this way, the only solution I found is to make a "ProductUtils" that converts from a "PersistentProduct" to a "Product" and vice versa.

The most elegant way would be to implement a small extension for greendao, so that you can specify the serialized name during schema-creation.
For Example:
de.greenrobot.daogenerator.Property.java:
// in PropertyBuilder append these lines
public PropertyBuilder setSerializedName(String sname) {
// Check the sname on correctness (i.e. not empty, not containing illegal characters)
property.serializedName = sname;
return this;
}
// in Property append these lines
private String serializedName = null;
public boolean isSerialized() {
return serializedName != null;
}
In entity.ftl add this line after line 24 (after package ${entity.javaPackage};):
<#if property.serializedName??>
import com.google.gson.annotations.SerializedName;
</#if>
And after line 55 (after: <#list entity.properties as property>)
<#if property.serializedName??>
#SerializedName("${property.serializedName}")
</#if>
Afterwards you should be able to use you generated greendao-entity for volley with the following restrictions:
If you get a Product over network, nothing is changed in the db, yet. You have to call insertOrReplace().
If you get a Product from db and send it via network some undesired fields might be serialized (i.e. myDao and daoSession)
If you get a Product via network and call insertOrReplace() the "network"-Product will be persisted and a already existing Product will be replaced by it BUT the referenced entities won't get updated or persisted if insertOrReplace() isn't called for each of them!
If you get a Product via network and call insertOrReplace() for every referenced entity toMany-entities that were referenced by the db-Product are still referenced by the updated Product, although they are not listed in the updated Product. You have to call resetPictures() and getPictures() to get the correct list, which will contain all toMany()-entities references by either the original Product stored in DB or the updated Product from network.
Update addressing 2.
To prevent daoSession and myDao from being serialized, you can use the following ExclusionStrategy:
private static class TransientExclusionStrategy implements ExclusionStrategy {
public boolean shouldSkipClass(Class<?> clazz) {
return (clazz.getModifiers() & java.lang.reflect.Modifier.TRANSIENT) != 0;
}
public boolean shouldSkipField(FieldAttributes f) {
return f.hasModifier(java.lang.reflect.Modifier.TRANSIENT);
}
}
Update addressing 1.,3. and 4.
As a fast solution you can add the following method in the KEEP-SECTIONS of your entity:
public void merge(DaoSession s) {
s.insertOrReplace(this);
// do this for all toMany-relations accordingly
for (Picture p : getPictures()) {
s.insertOrReplace(p);
newPics.add(p.getId());
}
resetPictures();
}
This will result in the original entity being updated and attached to the session and dao. Also every Picture that is references by the network-product will be persisted or updated. Pictures reference by the original entity, but not by the network-entity remain untouched and get merged into the list.
This is far from perfect, but it shows where to go and what to do. The next steps would be to do everything that is done in merge() inside one transaction and then to integrate different merge-methods into dao.ftl.
NOTE
The code given in this answer is neither complete nor tested and is meant as a hint on how to solve this. As pointed out above this solution still has some restrictions, that have to be dealt with.

JPA: Eclipselink does not persist bi-directional relationships in database

My domain model in my Java EE 6 application contains bi-directional relationships like the following:
#Entity
public class Users implements PrimaryKeyHolder<String>, Serializable {
#Id
private String username;
#ManyToMany(mappedBy= "users")
private List<Category> categories;
public List<Category> getCategories() {
if (categories == null) {
categories = new ArrayList<Category>();
}
return Collections.unmodifiableList(categories);
}
public void addCategory(Category category) {
if (categories == null) {
categories = new ArrayList<Category>();
}
categories.add(category);
if (!category.getUsers().contains(this)) {
category.addUser(this);
}
}
public void removeCategory(Category category) {
if (categories == null) {
categories = new ArrayList<Category>();
}
categories.remove(category);
if (category.getUsers().contains(this)) {
category.removeUser(this);
}
}
public void setCategories(Collection<Category> categories) {
if (this.categories == null) {
this.categories = new ArrayList<Category>();
}
for (Iterator<Category> it = this.categories.iterator(); it.hasNext();) {
Category category = it.next();
it.remove();
if (category.getUsers().contains(this)) {
category.removeUser(this);
}
}
for (Category category : categories) {
addCategory(category);
}
}
}
#Entity
public class Category implements PrimaryKeyHolder<Long>, Serializable {
#Id
private Long id;
#ManyToMany
private List<User> users;
public List<User> getUsers() {
if (users == null) {
users = new ArrayList<User>();
}
return Collections.unmodifiableList(users);
}
protected void addUser(User user) {
if (users == null) {
users = new ArrayList<User>();
}
users.add(user);
}
protected void removeUser(User user) {
if (users == null) {
users = new ArrayList<User>();
}
users.remove(user);
}
}
UPDATE: I added relationship management code. Relationships are only set on the user side, therefore, the add/remove methods are protected in the Categoriy class. I set the categories on the user via setCategories.
Eclipselink correctly generates a join table CATEGORY_USERS. However, it does not persist any information in it (it only caches the information). E.g. when I execute a find operation on the entity manager (e.g. a user), it returns the complete object graph (including the category relationship). But when I look at the tables, information are not updated (even though the transactions are committed). I also inserted a flush operation in my code, without success. Basic information (like String, Integer, etc. columns) gets correctly persisted and updated. After turning the log level to FINE, I can see that no SQL statements are executed for the relationships and the join table, respectively. But I do see SQL statements for uni-directional relationships.
My datamodel is covered by extensive unit tests, which all pass successfully. I basically do the same operation as in the container, commit the transaction, reload the entities from the db and check if the relationships are correctly set, which they are (I'm using the in-memory derby database for testing).
My app server is Glassfish v3.1-b17.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Theo

Ensure you are setting both sides of the relationship. The specification requires that the application sets both sides of the relationship as there is no relationship maintenance in JPA.

After endless hours of trying I finally got to a solution: I simply changed the owning side of the relationship, i.e. I put the mappedBy attribute to the category entity like this:
#ManyToMany(mappedBy= "categories")
private List<User> users;
The explanation for this can be found here

Four points:
1.- When you have an error, it's more simple find solution isolating them in an example (Or unit test) that reproduces the error. In your case, you could do an example with more simple getter and setter (for example, removing unmodifiableList use and other innecesary methods for testing actually issue).
2.- I advise you to use pojos for model, without any logic. So, remove logic from pojos.
3.- We are using eclipselink and we do not have problems persisting relations. So, it is more possible that error will be in your code.
4.- Test annoting relation with "cascade = javax.persistence.CascadeType.ALL"
Apology for my poor English :(