jpa, risks of using an illegal named query? - java

I made a NamedQuery that works but I have multiple error markers in eclipse. Now my query might not be legal, an answer of so (see comments) told me it wasn't possible to do what I intended to do in jpa. So, since I managed to do it anyway and I don't really have a clue why it works: my question is what are the underlying risks of using this :
query = "SELECT t FROM Thethread t LEFT JOIN FETCH t.threadVotes tv ON tv.user1=:currentUser ORDER BY t.datePosted DESC"
Under on:
JOIN FETCH expressions cannot be defined with an identification
Under :currentUser:
Input parameters can only be used in the WHERE clause or HAVING clause of a query.
I didn't manage to get the result I want without it. Which is :
Get the newest Thethread
Get only the current user vote in its collection.
If you know how to do that, please, be my guest.
The entities are as such :
public class Thethread implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private long idthread;
#Temporal(TemporalType.TIMESTAMP)
#Column(name = "date_posted")
private Date datePosted;
private int downvotes;
private int upvotes;
// bi-directional many-to-one association to ThreadVote
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "thethread")
private List<ThreadVote> threadVotes;
}
public class ThreadVote implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Id
#Column(name = "id_votes_thread")
private int idVotesThread;
private int vote;
// bi-directional many-to-one association to Thethread
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "thread")
private Thethread thethread;
// bi-directional many-to-one association to User
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "from_user")
private User user1;
}

Your query is correct JPQL according to JPA 2.1 (JavaEE 7). Eclipselink supports it and other providers should too, if they support 2.1 version of JPA.
The operator ON with JOIN is new with this latest JPA version, it was not present in neither JPA 2.0 (JavaEE 6) nor in older JPA 1 versions.
Here is more info from EclipseLink wiki. The wiki states that Eclipselink implements ON operator and that it is in draft JPA 2.1. I checked also that it is also in final JPA 2.1 specification - and it is there.
In order to use your query, you just need to ensure that your environment/application server supports JPA 2.1 (e.g. application server should support Java EE 7, such as Glassfish 4 or WildFly 8+)
It is not a problem that your IDE (Eclipse) gives warnings until your query works. Eclipse probably does not support JPA 2.1 syntax or your project must be somehow configured to support JPA 2.1 and not older versions of JPA. Try to look into project properties, under project facets, and ensure you have JPA in version 2.1

Related

Database Migration with Spring JPA

So I've read tons and tons of posts, forums, question and answers about this topic but I am still quite unsure about what migration means.
Let me first introduce you to my problem.
I have a Spring Boot backend working with MySQL Database with the help of Spring JPA Entities.
Now my problem is the following:
I already have a Spring JPA Entity defined as follows:
#Entity
#Getter
#Setter
public class Blog {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
private String title;
private String content;
private LocalDateTime createdAt = LocalDateTime.now();
}
After having this entity persisted to the database, I realized that the simple String title wouldn't be enough as it maps to a varchar(255) making my Blog posts couldn't exceed 255 characters.
So I would like to change this in the database without running any custom built SQL scripts to modify the column type in the table.
I have something in mind like I would modify the current JPA Entity as follows:
#Entity
#Getter
#Setter
public class Blog {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
private String title;
#Lob // <--- Notice the Lob here
private String content;
private LocalDateTime createdAt = LocalDateTime.now();
}
If I am right, the Large Object annotation would mean that in the Database the column type becomes longtext allowing a lot more characters than 255 so my blog posts would fit.
So in short this is how I stumbled upon the topic of Database Migration I am just unsure if that is the thing I need in this situation. Can you please confirm if I am right about this, also can you please suggest possible solutions for this particular problem? I know there is a tool called Liquibase used for migrations which is quite popular. Should I go for it, or is there somthing else I would need?
Thanks in advance for the help.

Weblogic 12c with Oracle Database 18c: setTransactionOnly() called on transaction error

I have an Enterprise Application, with some JPA 2.1 entities. I'm reaching the database via a registered JNDI Datasource from WebLogic. The JPA implementation is Hibernate 5.2.17. I'm using Spring Data JPA to ease the database access.
The entity in question:
public class PermissionEntity implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = -3862680194592486778L;
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long id;
#Column(unique = true)
private String permission;
#ManyToMany
private List<RoleEntity> roles;
}
When I'm trying to insert a new entity, I get the following exception from WebLogic: weblogic.transaction.internal.AppSetRollbackOnlyException: setRollbackOnly called on transaction.
This error doesn't happen with other entities. Neither in this, nor in other EARs, while in theory, all the configuration is the same.
It might be a constraint violation, or something else.
In order to understand the problem set the following flag on your managed server startup parameters:
-Dweblogic.transaction.allowOverrideSetRollbackReason=true
This way you should get an error stack with some more relevant information on the container transaction failure.

Unable to guess FieldBridge in Search 5.5. Unindexed Fields

Versions:
Hibernate-Core: 5.2.5.Final
Hibernate-Search: 5.5.5.Final
Having the following mappings:
#Indexed
#Entity
#Table(name = "scanresult")
public class ScanResult
{
#Id
private ScanResultKey id;
#Field
#Column(name = "name")
private String name;
}
#Embeddable
public class ScanResultKey implements Serializable
{
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "eA", referencedColumnName = "id")
private EntityA entA;
//others...
}
I have read in previous posts that this was an issue in Search 4.4 (when having composite id and foreign relations), but this should be fixed in 5.5. So apparently it is my fault. But I can't figure out what could I do wrong
Exception:
org.hibernate.search.exception.SearchException: HSEARCH000135: Unable to guess FieldBridge for id in entities.keys.ScanResultKey
Note: I only need one field(name) to be indexed
Could you please point out what I'm doing wrong?
OK, Since this question got interest near to none, according to view count, here is, briefly, the way I managed (hopefully) to resolve the problem (Please, correct me if you know more)
Verify modules' versions compatibility
According to one of the commenters in this SO question, not all (even latest) versions are compatible with each other. For example:
Hibernate Search 5.5 works with Hibernate ORM 5.0.x and 5.1.x (NOT
with 5.2.x), and with Apache Lucene 5.3.x, 5.4.x and 5.5.x (Not 6.0)
Stated by: Sanne
This is not a fix to this particular problem, but might save from other issues
Create a FieldBridge for Composite Key implementing
TwoWayFieldBridge
public class ScanResultBridge implements TwoWayFieldBridge
Add annotation to Entity Class, specifying the implementation of Bridge
#FieldBridge(impl = ScanResultBridge.class)
private ScanResultKey id;

Hibernate/JPA: could not set a field value by reflection setter

My JPA/Hibernate odyssey continues...
I am trying to work around this issue, and so I have had to define primitive #Ids in my class that uses 3 entity fields as a composite key. This seems to get me a bit further, but now I'm getting this when persisting:
javax.persistence.PersistenceException: org.hibernate.PropertyAccessException: could not set a field value by reflection setter of com.example.model.LanguageSkill.stafferId
Here's my composite class:
public class LanguageSkill implements Serializable
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue (strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
#Column(name = "Staffer_ID")
private Long stafferId;
#Id
#ManyToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#MapsId(value = "stafferId")
private Staffer staffer;
#Id
#GeneratedValue (strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
#Column(name = "Language_ID")
private Long languageId;
#ManyToOne
#MapsId(value= "languageId")
private Language language;
#Id
#GeneratedValue (strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
#Column(name = "Language_Proficiency_ID")
private Long languageProficiencyId;
#ManyToOne
#MapsId(value= "languageProficiencyId")
private LanguageProficiency languageProficiency;
}
I do have proper getters and setters (IDE-generated) for both the primitives as well as the entities.
Here are my libs. I'm not totally convinced that I'm using a compatible set of persistence libraries (references to a cookbook detailing how to properly mix-and-match these would be highly appreciated.)
Hibernate 3.5.6-SNAPSHOT
hibernate-jpamodelgen 1.1.0.CR1
hibernate-validator 3.1.0.GA
MySQL 5.1.6
jsr250-api 1.0
javax.validation validation-api 1.0.0.GA
Wow, it's frustrating. 3 days now full time trying to solve various issues like this just for basic ORM. I feel defective. :-(
It seems a correct code. I had problem with this exception when I used Blob[]
#Lob
#Column(name="DOCUMENTO",nullable=false)
private Blob[] documento;
But changing by Byte[], I solved this problem.
I have only a occurrence, looking Oracle data types, I have seen this LONG is Character data of variable length (A bigger version the VARCHAR2 datatype).
I assume that your ID is a Integer....Why not change Long by Integer? You must remember that it only accepts primitive types.
This is my code and it works fine:
#Id
#SequenceGenerator(sequenceName="SQ_DOCUMENTO",name="seqDocumento")
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.SEQUENCE,generator="seqDocumento")
private Integer idDocumento;
I use Hibernate 3.5.6-final, Spring 3.0.4, Junit 4 and Oracle 11g.
You have to remove the #GeneratedValue annotations.

can I have both JDO and JPA annotations at the same time?

What will actually happen if I provide a full set of annotations for JPA and JDO on data objects?
Can I then switch between them without touching the code? how can I switch what to aplay external configuration files? I know in the META-INF there are persistence.xml jdoconfig.xml but I do not understand the how to use them. (may be a link to a compressive explanation?)
Currently I got both files in place and the code below compiles Ok. I am interested in what goes under the hood to understand implications of this approach.
For vivid example:
#Entity
#PersistenceCapable(identityType = IdentityType.APPLICATION, detachable = "true")
class B
{
#PrimaryKey
#Persistent(valueStrategy = IdGeneratorStrategy.IDENTITY)
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
#Column(name = "id")
private Long id;
#Persistent
#Basic
private String name;
}
Platform: default setup of Google AppEngine 1.4 it uses DataNucleus Enhancer (version 1.1.4)
Although I have never try this it should work. This is the point of annotations: the do not affect the code unless they are used. JPA implementation uses its annotations, JDO uses others.

Categories

Resources