org.hibernate.HibernateException: identifier of an instance
of org.cometd.hibernate.User altered from 12 to 3
in fact, my user table is really must dynamically change its value, my Java app is multithreaded.
Any ideas how to fix it?
Are you changing the primary key value of a User object somewhere? You shouldn't do that. Check that your mapping for the primary key is correct.
What does your mapping XML file or mapping annotations look like?
You must detach your entity from session before modifying its ID fields
In my case, the PK Field in hbm.xml was of type "integer" but in bean code it was long.
In my case getters and setter names were different from Variable name.
private Long stockId;
public Long getStockID() {
return stockId;
}
public void setStockID(Long stockID) {
this.stockId = stockID;
}
where it should be
public Long getStockId() {
return stockId;
}
public void setStockId(Long stockID) {
this.stockId = stockID;
}
In my case, I solved it changing the #Id field type from long to Long.
In my particular case, this was caused by a method in my service implementation that needed the spring #Transactional(readOnly = true) annotation. Once I added that, the issue was resolved. Unusual though, it was just a select statement.
Make sure you aren't trying to use the same User object more than once while changing the ID. In other words, if you were doing something in a batch type operation:
User user = new User(); // Using the same one over and over, won't work
List<Customer> customers = fetchCustomersFromSomeService();
for(Customer customer : customers) {
// User user = new User(); <-- This would work, you get a new one each time
user.setId(customer.getId());
user.setName(customer.getName());
saveUserToDB(user);
}
In my case, a template had a typo so instead of checking for equivalency (==) it was using an assignment equals (=).
So I changed the template logic from:
if (user1.id = user2.id) ...
to
if (user1.id == user2.id) ...
and now everything is fine. So, check your views as well!
It is a problem in your update method. Just instance new User before you save changes and you will be fine. If you use mapping between DTO and Entity class, than do this before mapping.
I had this error also. I had User Object, trying to change his Location, Location was FK in User table. I solved this problem with
#Transactional
public void update(User input) throws Exception {
User userDB = userRepository.findById(input.getUserId()).orElse(null);
userDB.setLocation(new Location());
userMapper.updateEntityFromDto(input, userDB);
User user= userRepository.save(userDB);
}
Also ran into this error message, but the root cause was of a different flavor from those referenced in the other answers here.
Generic answer:
Make sure that once hibernate loads an entity, no code changes the primary key value in that object in any way. When hibernate flushes all changes back to the database, it throws this exception because the primary key changed. If you don't do it explicitly, look for places where this may happen unintentionally, perhaps on related entities that only have LAZY loading configured.
In my case, I am using a mapping framework (MapStruct) to update an entity. In the process, also other referenced entities were being updates as mapping frameworks tend to do that by default. I was later replacing the original entity with new one (in DB terms, changed the value of the foreign key to reference a different row in the related table), the primary key of the previously-referenced entity was already updated, and hibernate attempted to persist this update on flush.
I was facing this issue, too.
The target table is a relation table, wiring two IDs from different tables. I have a UNIQUE constraint on the value combination, replacing the PK.
When updating one of the values of a tuple, this error occured.
This is how the table looks like (MySQL):
CREATE TABLE my_relation_table (
mrt_left_id BIGINT NOT NULL,
mrt_right_id BIGINT NOT NULL,
UNIQUE KEY uix_my_relation_table (mrt_left_id, mrt_right_id),
FOREIGN KEY (mrt_left_id)
REFERENCES left_table(lef_id),
FOREIGN KEY (mrt_right_id)
REFERENCES right_table(rig_id)
);
The Entity class for the RelationWithUnique entity looks basically like this:
#Entity
#IdClass(RelationWithUnique.class)
#Table(name = "my_relation_table")
public class RelationWithUnique implements Serializable {
...
#Id
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "mrt_left_id", referencedColumnName = "left_table.lef_id")
private LeftTableEntity leftId;
#Id
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "mrt_right_id", referencedColumnName = "right_table.rig_id")
private RightTableEntity rightId;
...
I fixed it by
// usually, we need to detach the object as we are updating the PK
// (rightId being part of the UNIQUE constraint) => PK
// but this would produce a duplicate entry,
// therefore, we simply delete the old tuple and add the new one
final RelationWithUnique newRelation = new RelationWithUnique();
newRelation.setLeftId(oldRelation.getLeftId());
newRelation.setRightId(rightId); // here, the value is updated actually
entityManager.remove(oldRelation);
entityManager.persist(newRelation);
Thanks a lot for the hint of the PK, I just missed it.
Problem can be also in different types of object's PK ("User" in your case) and type you ask hibernate to get session.get(type, id);.
In my case error was identifier of an instance of <skipped> was altered from 16 to 32.
Object's PK type was Integer, hibernate was asked for Long type.
In my case it was because the property was long on object but int in the mapping xml, this exception should be clearer
If you are using Spring MVC or Spring Boot try to avoid:
#ModelAttribute("user") in one controoler, and in other controller
model.addAttribute("user", userRepository.findOne(someId);
This situation can produce such error.
This is an old question, but I'm going to add the fix for my particular issue (Spring Boot, JPA using Hibernate, SQL Server 2014) since it doesn't exactly match the other answers included here:
I had a foreign key, e.g. my_id = '12345', but the value in the referenced column was my_id = '12345 '. It had an extra space at the end which hibernate didn't like. I removed the space, fixed the part of my code that was allowing this extra space, and everything works fine.
Faced the same Issue.
I had an assosciation between 2 beans. In bean A I had defined the variable type as Integer and in bean B I had defined the same variable as Long.
I changed both of them to Integer. This solved my issue.
I solve this by instancing a new instance of depending Object. For an example
instanceA.setInstanceB(new InstanceB());
instanceA.setInstanceB(YOUR NEW VALUE);
In my case I had a primary key in the database that had an accent, but in other table its foreign key didn't have. For some reason, MySQL allowed this.
It looks like you have changed identifier of an instance
of org.cometd.hibernate.User object menaged by JPA entity context.
In this case create the new User entity object with appropriate id. And set it instead of the original User object.
Did you using multiple Transaction managers from the same service class.
Like, if your project has two or more transaction configurations.
If true,
then at first separate them.
I got the issue when i tried fetching an existing DB entity, modified few fields and executed
session.save(entity)
instead of
session.merge(entity)
Since it is existing in the DB, when we should merge() instead of save()
you may be modified primary key of fetched entity and then trying to save with a same transaction to create new record from existing.
Related
I am facing a very strange issue at the moment.
I have an entity that contains a property that is an element collection.
#ElementCollection(targetClass=Integer.class, fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#CollectionTable(name="campaign_publisher", joinColumns=#JoinColumn(name="campaign_id"))
#Column(name = "publisher_id")
...
#NotEmpty(message = "campaign.publishers.missing")
public Set<Integer> getPublishers() {
return this.publishers;
}
public Campaign setPublishers(Set<Integer> publisherId) {
this.publishers = publisherId;
return this;
}
This all works fine. The values are validated and saved correct.
I also want this entity to have optimistic concurrency so I applied a #Version annotation as well.
#Version
private Long etag = 0L;
...
public Long getEtag() {
return etag;
}
public void setEtag(Long etag) {
this.etag = etag;
}
By adding the #Version annotation the #NotEmpty validation on my set of publishers always returns invalid.
To try and diagnose this I have tried the following:
Creating a custom validator at the entity level so I can inspect the values in the entity. I found that the Set of values have been replaced with an empty PersistentSet which is causing the validation to always fail.
I created some unit tests for the entity that uses a validator that is retrieved from the validationfactory and this validator seems to work as expected.
I have also tried to change the ElementCollection to a many-to-many relationship and a bi-directional one-to-many but the issue persists.
Right now I am out of ideas. The only thing I have found that works correctly is disabling the hibernate validation and manually calling the validator just before I save my data.
So my questions are:
Has anyone encountered this issue before?
Any advice on what I could try next?
Thank you all for reading!
Short answer: Set the initial value for etag = null.
// this should do the trick
#Version
private Long etag = null;
Longer one : When you are adding a optimistic locking via adding #Version annotation on a field with a default value you are making hibernate/spring-data think that the entity is not a new one (even the id is null). So on initial save instead of persisting entity undelying libraries try to do a merge. And merging transient entity forces hibernate to just one by one copy all the properties from source entity (the ones which you are persisting) to the target one (which is autocreate by hibernate with all the properties set to default values aka nulls) and here comes the problem, as hibernate will just copy the values of associations of FROM_PARENT type or in other words only associations which are hold on entity side but in your case the association is TO_PARENT (a foreign key from child to parent) hibernate will try to postpone association persistance after main entity save, but save will not work as entity will not pass #NotEmpty validation.
First I would suggest to remove the default value initialization for your #Version property. This property is maintained by hibernate, and should be initialized by it.
Second: are you sure that you are validating the fully constructed entity? i.e. you are constructing something, then do something, and for exact persist/flush cycle your entity is in wrong condition.
To clarify this, while you are on a Spring side, I would suggest to introduce service-level validation on your DAO layer. I.e. force the bean validation during initial call to DAO, rather then bean validation of entity during flush (yeap hibernate batches lots of things, and exact validation happens only during flush cycle).
To achieve this: mark your DAO #Validated and make your function arguments beign validated: FancyEntity store(#Valid #NotNull FancyEntity fancyEntity) { fancyEntity = em.persist(fancyEntity); em.flush(); return fancyEntity;}
By making this, you will be sure that you are storing valid entity: the validation would happen before store method is called. This will reveal the place where your entity became invalid: in your service layer, or in bad behaving hibernate layer.
I noticed that you use mixed access: methods and fields. In this case you can try to set #Version on the method:
#Version
public Long getEtag() {
return etag;
}
not on the field.
I am trying to run this basic JPA/EJB code:
public static void main(String[] args){
UserBean user = new UserBean();
user.setId(1);
user.setUserName("name1");
user.setPassword("passwd1");
em.persist(user);
}
I get this error:
javax.ejb.EJBException: javax.persistence.PersistenceException: org.hibernate.PersistentObjectException: detached entity passed to persist: com.JPA.Database
Any ideas?
I search on the internet and the reason I found was:
This was caused by how you created the objects, i.e. If you set the ID property explicitly. Removing ID assignment fixed it.
But I didn't get it, what will I have to modify to get the code working?
The error occurs because the object's ID is set. Hibernate distinguishes between transient and detached objects and persist works only with transient objects. If persist concludes the object is detached (which it will because the ID is set), it will return the "detached object passed to persist" error. You can find more details here and here.
However, this only applies if you have specified the primary key to be auto-generated: if the field is configured to always be set manually, then your code works.
Let's say you have two entities Album and Photo. Album contains many photos, so it's a one to many relationship.
Album class
#Entity
public class Album {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.AUTO)
Integer albumId;
String albumName;
#OneToMany(targetEntity=Photo.class,mappedBy="album",cascade={CascadeType.ALL},orphanRemoval=true)
Set<Photo> photos = new HashSet<Photo>();
}
Photo class
#Entity
public class Photo{
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.AUTO)
Integer photo_id;
String photoName;
#ManyToOne(targetEntity=Album.class)
#JoinColumn(name="album_id")
Album album;
}
What you have to do before persist or merge is to set the Album reference in each photos.
Album myAlbum = new Album();
Photo photo1 = new Photo();
Photo photo2 = new Photo();
photo1.setAlbum(myAlbum);
photo2.setAlbum(myAlbum);
That is how to attach the related entity before you persist or merge.
remove
user.setId(1);
because it is auto generate on the DB,
and continue with persist command.
I got the answer, I was using:
em.persist(user);
I used merge in place of persist:
em.merge(user);
But no idea, why persist didn't work. :(
if you use to generate the id = GenerationType.AUTO strategy in your entity.
Replaces user.setId (1) by user.setId (null), and the problem is solved.
Here .persist() only will insert the record.If we use .merge() it will check is there any record exist with the current ID, If it exists, it will update otherwise it will insert a new record.
I know its kind of too late and proly every one got the answer. But little bit more to add to this: when GenerateType is set, persist() on an object is expected to get an id generated.
If there is a value set to the Id by user already, hibernate treats it as saved record and so it is treated as detached.
if the id is null - in this situation a null pointer exception is raised when the type is AUTO or IDENTITY etc unless the id is generated from a table or a sequece etc.
design: this happens when the table has a bean property as primary key.
GenerateType must be set only when an id is autogenerated.
remove this and the insert should work with the user specified id.
(it is a bad design to have a property mapped to primary key field)
If you set id in your database to be primary key and autoincrement, then this line of code is wrong:
user.setId(1);
Try with this:
public static void main(String[] args){
UserBean user = new UserBean();
user.setUserName("name1");
user.setPassword("passwd1");
em.persist(user);
}
I had this problem and it was caused by the second level cache:
I persisted an entity using hibernate
Then I deleted the row created from a separate process that didn't interact with the second level cache
I persisted another entity with the same identifier (my identifier values are not auto-generated)
Hence, because the cache wasn't invalidated, hibernate assumed that it was dealing with a detached instance of the same entity.
I am using hibernate retrieve results from my MySQL database into my Java project. Recently, I had a lot of redundant data and had to manually clean up the database by copying the required data into new tables and then renaming the newly created table to old table.
But, now querying the database with hibernate gives only one row as the result. I have manually checked the database and there are several different rows in the database. My query to Hibernate is something like this:
Criteria c = session.createCriteria(UserDto.class);
c.setMaxResults(100);
List<UserDto> users = c.list();
users contains 100 elements but all are the same.
The mapping of userDto is here.
Any idea what is happening here?
If your UserDto class has ToMany relations, then this is quite possible that outer join on them results in many records which all contain one and the same user data. You should use
session.createCriteria(UserDto.class).setResultTransformer(Criteria.DISTINCT_ROOT_ENTITY)
Double-check your mapping of the UserDto class to the database.
My guess is that you don't have it mapped to the table that you think you do.
As Sebastien mentioned, setting hibernate.show.sql to true should make this obvious.
Did you deleted the old tables? And in the configuration file what is the value for "hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto"?
I think the reason is these records have same id, so Hibernate treat them as the same record. You can check it.
I had same problem. In my case, the problem detected when I created a table in MySQL manually and I tried to read data from that table using hibernate and a dto class. After checking my dto class fields and database table, I figured out that there is a difference between table column named "id" and the class field which named dbId. The code was something like this:
#Id
#GeneratedValue
#Column(name="db_id", unique = true)
private long dbId;
So I edited the name and changed the code:
#Id
#GeneratedValue
#Column(name="id", unique = true)
private long dbId;
Which "id" was the correct name of databse table column and the problem has been solved.
I want to wrap id in custom class. Like this
#Entity
#Table(name = "USERS")
public class User {
#EmbeddedId
UserId id;
}
#Embeddable
public class UserId implements Serializable {
private Long value;
}
The issue in auto generation value for UserId. What I should do to make #GeneratedValue on value be workable?
BTW, It would be great if id would be initialized automatically itself.
As far as I know Hibernate only generates values for a field marked as the #Id. I found this post and Hardy's answer supports this.
We have tried to do similar and managed it via a pre-insert listener. It was fairly complex and non-ideal though. Also you might find different behaviour on different database palatforms. Using Oracle sequences would mean that you need to assign the value pre-insert (Hibernate does a select to get the value and then an insert) but with MySQL the auto incrementing field would assign the value and hibernate does an insert to generate the auto generated value and then select to find out what the value was.
I got this error message:
error: Found shared references to a collection: Person.relatedPersons
When I tried to execute addToRelatedPersons(anotherPerson):
person.addToRelatedPersons(anotherPerson);
anotherPerson.addToRelatedPersons(person);
anotherPerson.save();
person.save();
My domain:
Person {
static hasMany = [relatedPersons:Person];
}
any idea why this happens ?
Hibernate shows this error when you attempt to persist more than one entity instance sharing the same collection reference (i.e. the collection identity in contrast with collection equality).
Note that it means the same collection, not collection element - in other words relatedPersons on both person and anotherPerson must be the same. Perhaps you're resetting that collection after entities are loaded? Or you've initialized both references with the same collection instance?
I had the same problem. In my case, the issue was that someone used BeanUtils to copy the properties of one entity to another, so we ended up having two entities referencing the same collection.
Given that I spent some time investigating this issue, I would recommend the following checklist:
Look for scenarios like entity1.setCollection(entity2.getCollection()) and getCollection returns the internal reference to the collection (if getCollection() returns a new instance of the collection, then you don't need to worry).
Look if clone() has been implemented correctly.
Look for BeanUtils.copyProperties(entity1, entity2).
Explanation on practice. If you try to save your object, e.g.:
Set<Folder> folders = message.getFolders();
folders.remove(inputFolder);
folders.add(trashFolder);
message.setFiles(folders);
MESSAGESDAO.getMessageDAO().save(message);
you don't need to set updated object to a parent object:
message.setFiles(folders);
Simple save your parent object like:
Set<Folder> folders = message.getFolders();
folders.remove(inputFolder);
folders.add(trashFolder);
// Not set updated object here
MESSAGESDAO.getMessageDAO().save(message);
Reading online the cause of this error can be also an hibernate bug, as workaround that it seems to work, it is to put a:
session.clear()
You must to put the clear after getting data and before commit and close, see example:
//getting data
SrReq sr = (SrReq) crit.uniqueResult();
SrSalesDetailDTO dt=SrSalesDetailMapper.INSTANCE.map(sr);
//CLEAR
session.clear();
//close session
session.getTransaction().commit();
session.close();
return dt;
I use this solution for select to database, for update or insert i don't know if this solution can work or can cause problems.
My problem is equal at 100% of this: http://www.progtown.com/topic128073-hibernate-many-to-many-on-two-tables.html
I have experienced a great example of reproducing such a problem.
Maybe my experience will help someone one day.
Short version
Check that your #Embedded Id of container has no possible collisions.
Long version
When Hibernate instantiates collection wrapper, it searches for already instantiated collection by CollectionKey in internal Map.
For Entity with #Embedded id, CollectionKey wraps EmbeddedComponentType and uses #Embedded Id properties for equality checks and hashCode calculation.
So if you have two entities with equal #Embedded Ids, Hibernate will instantiate and put new collection by the first key and will find same collection for the second key.
So two entities with same #Embedded Id will be populated with same collection.
Example
Suppose you have Account entity which has lazy set of loans.
And Account has #Embedded Id consists of several parts(columns).
#Entity
#Table(schema = "SOME", name = "ACCOUNT")
public class Account {
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "account")
private Set<Loan> loans;
#Embedded
private AccountId accountId;
...
}
#Embeddable
public class AccountId {
#Column(name = "X")
private Long x;
#Column(name = "BRANCH")
private String branchId;
#Column(name = "Z")
private String z;
...
}
Then suppose that Account has additional property mapped by #Embedded Id but has relation to other entity Branch.
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinColumn(name = "BRANCH")
#MapsId("accountId.branchId")
#NotFound(action = NotFoundAction.IGNORE)//Look at this!
private Branch branch;
It could happen that you have no FK for Account to Brunch relation id DB so Account.BRANCH column can have any value not presented in Branch table.
According to #NotFound(action = NotFoundAction.IGNORE) if value is not present in related table, Hibernate will load null value for the property.
If X and Y columns of two Accounts are same(which is fine), but BRANCH is different and not presented in Branch table, hibernate will load null for both and Embedded Ids will be equal.
So two CollectionKey objects will be equal and will have same hashCode for different Accounts.
result = {CollectionKey#34809} "CollectionKey[Account.loans#Account#43deab74]"
role = "Account.loans"
key = {Account#26451}
keyType = {EmbeddedComponentType#21355}
factory = {SessionFactoryImpl#21356}
hashCode = 1187125168
entityMode = {EntityMode#17415} "pojo"
result = {CollectionKey#35653} "CollectionKey[Account.loans#Account#33470aa]"
role = "Account.loans"
key = {Account#35225}
keyType = {EmbeddedComponentType#21355}
factory = {SessionFactoryImpl#21356}
hashCode = 1187125168
entityMode = {EntityMode#17415} "pojo"
Because of this, Hibernate will load same PesistentSet for two entities.
In my case, I was copying and pasting code from my other classes, so I did not notice that the getter code was bad written:
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "credito")
public Set getConceptoses() {
return this.letrases;
}
public void setConceptoses(Set conceptoses) {
this.conceptoses = conceptoses;
}
All references conceptoses but if you look at the get says letrases
I too got the same issue, someone used BeanUtils.copyProperties(source, target). Here both source and target, are using the same collection as attribute.
So i just used the deep copy as below..
How to Clone Collection in Java - Deep copy of ArrayList and HashSet
Consider an entity:
public class Foo{
private<user> user;
/* with getters and setters */
}
And consider an Business Logic class:
class Foo1{
List<User> user = new ArrayList<>();
user = foo.getUser();
}
Here the user and foo.getUser() share the same reference. But saving the two references creates a conflict.
The proper usage should be:
class Foo1 {
List<User> user = new ArrayList<>();
user.addAll(foo.getUser);
}
This avoids the conflict.
I faced similar exception in my application. After looking into the stacktrace it was clear that exception was thrown within a FlushEntityEventListener class.
In Hibernate 4.3.7 the MSLocalSessionFactory bean no longer supports the eventListeners property. Hence, one has to explicitly fetch the service registry from individual Hibernate session beans and then set the required custom event listeners.
In the process of adding custom event listeners we need to make sure the corresponding default event listeners are removed from the respective Hibernate session.
If the default event listener is not removed then the case arises of two event listeners registered against same event. In this case while iterating over these listeners, against first listeners any collections in the session will be flagged as reached and while processing the same collection against second listener would throw this Hibernate exception.
So, make sure that when registering custom listeners corresponding default listeners are removed from registry.
My problem was that I had setup an #ManyToOne relationship. Maybe if the answers above don't fix your problem you might want to check the relationship that was mentioned in the error message.
Posting here because it's taken me over 2 weeks to get to the bottom of this, and I still haven't fully resolved it.
There is a chance, that you're also just running into this bug which has been around since 2017 and hasn't been addressed.
I honestly have no clue how to get around this bug. I'm posting here for my sanity and hopefully to shave a couple weeks of your googling. I'd love any input anyone may have, but my particular "answer" to this problem was not listed in any of the above answers.
I had to replace the following collection initilization:
challenge.setGoals(memberChallenge.getGoals());
with
challenge.setGoals(memberChallenge.getGoals()
.stream()
.map(dmo -> {
final ChallengeGoal goal = new ChallengeGoalImpl();
goal.setMemberChallenge(challenge);
goal.setGoalDate(dmo.getGoalDate());
goal.setGoalValue(dmo.getGoalValue());
return goal;
})
.collect(Collectors.toList()));
I changed
#OneToMany( cascade= CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(
name = "some_id",
referencedColumnName = "some_id"
)
to
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "some_id", cascade= CascadeType.ALL)
You're using pointers(indirectly), so sometimes you're copying the memory address instead of the object/collection you want. Hibernate checks this and throw that error. Here's what can you do:
Don't copy the object/collection;
Initiate a new empty one;
Make a function to copy it's content and call it;
For example:
public Entity copyEntity(Entity e){
Entity copy = new Entity();
e.copy(name);
e.setCollection2(null);
e.setCollection3(copyCollection(e.getCollection3());
return copy;
}
In a one to many and many to one relationship this error will occur. If you attempt to devote same instance from many to one entity to more than one instance from one to many entity.
For example, each person can have many books but each of these books can be owned by only one person if you consider more than one owner for a book this issue is raised.