So, I have found myself in quite a pickle regarding Hibernate. When I started developing my web application, I used "eager" loading everywhere so I could easily access children, parents etc.
After a while, I ran into my first problem - re-saving of deleted objects. Multiple stackoverflow threads suggested that I should remove the object from all the collections that it's in. Reading those suggestions made my "spidey sense" tickle as my relations weren't really simple and I had to iterate multiple objects which made my code look kind of ugly and made me wonder if this was the best approach.
For example, when deleting Employee (that belongs to User in a sense that User can act as multiple different Employees). Let's say Employee can leave Feedback to Party, so Employee can have multiple Feedback and Party can have multiple Feedback. Additionally, both Employee and Party belong to some kind of a parent object, let's say an Organization. Basically, we have:
class User {
// Has many
Set<Employee> employees;
// Has many
Set<Organization> organizations;
// Has many through employees
Set<Organization> associatedOrganizations;
}
class Employee {
// Belongs to
User user;
// Belongs to
Organization organization;
// Has many
Set<Feedback> feedbacks;
}
class Organization {
// Belongs to
User user;
// Has many
Set<Employee> employees;
// Has many
Set<Party> parties;
}
class Party {
// Belongs to
Organization organization;
// Has many
Set<Feedback> feedbacks;
}
class Feedback {
// Belongs to
Party party;
// Belongs to
Employee employee;
}
Here's what I ended up with when deleting an employee:
// First remove feedbacks related to employee
Iterator<Feedback> iter = employee.getFeedbacks().iterator();
while (iter.hasNext()) {
Feedback feedback = iter.next();
iter.remove();
feedback.getParty().getFeedbacks().remove(feedback);
session.delete(feedback);
}
session.update(employee);
// Now remove employee from organization
Organization organization = employee.getOrganization();
organization.getEmployees().remove(employee);
session.update(organization);
This is, by my definition, ugly. I would've assumed that by using
#Cascade({CascadeType.ALL})
then Hibernate would magically remove Employee from all associations by simply doing:
session.delete(employee);
instead I get:
Error during managed flush [deleted object would be re-saved by cascade (remove deleted object from associations)
So, in order to try to get my code a bit cleaner and maybe even optimized (sometimes lazy fetch is enough, sometimes I need eager), I tried lazy fetching almost everything and hoping that if I do, for example:
employee.getFeedbacks()
then the feedbacks are nicely fetched without any problem but nope, everything breaks:
failed to lazily initialize a collection of role: ..., could not initialize proxy - no Session
The next thing I thought about was removing the possibility for objects to insert/delete their related children objects but that would probably be a bad idea performance-wise - inserting every object separately with
child.parent=parent
instead of in a bulk with
parent.children().add(children).
Finally, I saw that multiple people recommended creating my own custom queries and stuff but at that point, why should I even bother with Hibernate? Is there really no good way to handle my problem relatively clean or am I missing something or am I an idiot?
If I understood the question correctly it's all about cascading through simple 1:N relations. In that case Hibernate can do the job rather well:
#Entity
public class Post {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL,
mappedBy = "post", orphanRemoval = true)
private List<Comment> comments = new ArrayList<>();
}
#Entity
public class Comment {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#ManyToOne
private Post post;
}
Code:
Post post = newPost();
doInTransaction(session -> {
session.delete(post);
});
Generates:
delete from Comment where id = 1
delete from Comment where id = 2
delete from Post where id = 1
But if you have some other (synthetic) collections, Hibernate has no chance to know which ones, so you have to handle them yourself.
As for Hibernate and custom queries, Hibernate provides HQL which is more compact then traditional SQL, but still is less transparent then annotations.
I am having a little issue with Ebean (in the context of Play Framework, Java).
I have elements sharing a one-to-many relationship (BankAccount <- BankingOperation).
I have defined the BankAccount class with, among others, the following fields:
#JsonIgnore
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
public List<BankingOperation> operations = new ArrayList<BankingOperation>();
For the Banking operation, the corresponding field:
#ManyToOne
#JsonIgnore
public BankAccount bankAccount;
My issue is that when I try to update the bank account, it deletes the related operations. Here's the code I am using:
public static Result saveAccount(Long id)
{
Form<BankAccount> form = Form.form(BankAccount.class).bindFromRequest();
if (form.hasErrors() || form.get().id != id) {
return badRequest();
}
form.get().update(id);
return ok();
}
I have the feeling that operations are deleted because they aren't loaded when I do the form().get(), and thus, when synchronizing with the DB, Ebean does what seems to be the best solution to it.
Would anyone have any clue on this issue? Is there another solution that I haven't discovered yet?
Thanks in advance for your help!
For now, I have found a (ugly) solution which is adding the following line before doing the update:
Ebean.refreshMany(form.get(), "operations");
Another solution could be not to build the form the model class but on an another class, forcing me to map each field one by one.
Is there any way to avoid having JPA to automatically persist objects?
I need to use a third party API and I have to pull/push from data from/to it. I've got a class responsible to interface the API and I have a method like this:
public User pullUser(int userId) {
Map<String,String> userData = getUserDataFromApi(userId);
return new UserJpa(userId, userData.get("name"));
}
Where the UserJpa class looks like:
#Entity
#Table
public class UserJpa implements User
{
#Id
#Column(name = "id", nullable = false)
private int id;
#Column(name = "name", nullable = false, length = 20)
private String name;
public UserJpa() {
}
public UserJpa(int id, String name) {
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
}
}
When I call the method (e.g. pullUser(1)), the returned user is automatically stored in the database. I don't want this to happen, is there a solution to avoid it? I know a solution could be to create a new class implementing User and return an instance of this class in the pullUser() method, is this a good practice?
Thank you.
Newly create instance of UserJpa is not persisted in pullUser. I assume also that there is not some odd implementation in getUserDataFromApi actually persisting something for same id.
In your case entity manager knows nothing about new instance of UserJPA. Generally entities are persisted via merge/persist calls or as a result of cascaded merge/persist operation. Check for these elsewhere in code base.
The only way in which a new entity gets persisted in JPA is by explicitly calling the EntityManager's persist() or merge() methods. Look in your code for calls to either one of them, that's the point where the persist operation is occurring, and refactor the code to perform the persistence elsewhere.
Generally JPA Objects are managed objects, these objects reflect their changes into the database when the transaction completes and before on a first level cache, obviously these objects need to become managed on the first place.
I really think that a best practice is to use a DTO object to handle the data transfering and then use the entity just for persistence purposes, that way it would be more cohesive and lower coupling, this is no objects with their nose where it shouldnt.
Hope it helps.
I have 2 JPA entities that have a bidirectional relationship between them.
#Entity
public class A {
#ManyToOne(cascade={CascadeType.PERSIST, CascadeType.MERGE})
B b;
// ...
}
and
#Entity
public class B {
#OneToMany(mappedBy="b",cascade={CascadeType.PERSIST, CascadeType.MERGE})
Set<A> as = new HashSet<A>();
// ...
}
Now I update some field values of a detached A which also has relationships to some Bs and vice versa and merge it back by
public String save(A a) {
A returnedA = em.merge(a);
}
returnedA now has the values of A prior to updating them.
I suppose that
FINEST: Merge clone with references A#a7caa3be
FINEST: Register the existing object B#cacf2dfb
FINEST: Register the existing object A#a7caa3be
FINEST: Register the existing object A#3f2584b8
indicates that the referenced As in B (which still have the old values) are responsible for overwriting the new ones?
Does anyone have a hint how to prevent this to happen?
Any idea is greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance.
Dirk, I've had a similar problem and the solution (I might not be leveraging the API correctly) was intensive. Eclipselink maintains a cache of objects and if they are not updated (merged/persisted) often the database reflects the change but the cascading objects are not updated (particularly the parents).
(I've declared A as the record joining multiple B's)
Entities:
public class A
{
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
Collection b;
}
public class B
{
#ManyToOne(cascade = {CascadeType.MERGE, CascadeType.REFRESH}) //I don't want to cascade a persist operation as that might make another A object)
A a;
}
In the case above a workaround is:
public void saveB(B b) //"Child relationship"
{
A a = b.getA();//do null checks as needed and get a reference to the parent
a.getBs().add(b); //I've had the collection be null
//Persistence here
entityInstance.merge(a); // or persist this will cascade and use b
}
public void saveA(A a)
{
//Persistence
entityInstance.merge(a) // or persist
}
What you're doing here is physically cascading the merge down the chain from the top. It is irritating to maintain, but it does solve the problem. Alternatively you can deal with it by checking if it is detached and refreshing/replacing but I've found that to be less desirable and irritating to work with.
If someone has a better answer as to what the correct setup is I would be happy to hear it. Right now I've taken this approach for my relational entities and it is definitely irritating to maintain.
Best of luck with it, I'd love to hear a better solution.
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.