Develop Reference

How to map to an existing Hibernate model using jOOQ fetchInto()?

I'm trying to use the jOOQ fetchInto() method to map to an existing Hibernate model Organization (class and its inheritances are below).
Organization organization = jooq().select().from(ORGANIZATION).fetchOne().into(Organization.class);
The problem I have is that I can't really understand what happens in DefaultRecordMapper as I feel I'm not entirely familiar with all the terms that are used. I'm trying to figure out how it applies to the Hibernate classes that are in my codebase.
So far what I've tried:
Use the jOOQ generated POJO's to see if it retrieves and maps the data at all (works).
Add a constructor, getters and setters to the Organization Hibernate model.
Add #Column annotation to name in the Organization Hibernate model.
What works:
id field gets mapped correctly.
What doesn't work:
name field doesn't get mapped (null).
createdAt and modifiedAt fields do not get mapped (null).
My question is: Is there something I am overlooking with the mapping and what are the things I should look at concerning the classes, fields, constructors and annotations with Hibernate models? I want to eventually map all the Hibernate models in the codebase and use fetchInto to do that.
Thanks! :)
#Entity
public class Organization extends BaseModel {
#Required public String name;
//... a lot of other code
}
#MappedSuperclass
public class BaseModel extends Model {
/** The datetime this entity was first saved. Automatically set by a JPA prePersist */
#NoBinding
#Column
#Type(type = "org.jadira.usertype.dateandtime.joda.PersistentDateTime")
public DateTime createdAt;
/** The datetime this entity was last modified. Automatically set by a JPA preUpdate */
#NoBinding
#Column
#Type(type = "org.jadira.usertype.dateandtime.joda.PersistentDateTime")
public DateTime modifiedAt;
//...
}
#MappedSuperclass
public class Model extends GenericModel { // Both Model and GenericModel are from the Play Framework
#Id
#GeneratedValue
public Long id;
public Model() {
}
public Long getId() {
return this.id;
}
public Object _key() {
return this.getId();
}
}

jOOQ doesn't support all the many JPA and Hibernate specific annotations. Historically, it supported a few JPA annotations (because why not), but full interop would be excessive and investing product development time in the wrong places. jOOQ is by no means a JPA implementation.
Step 0: Why didn't (some) of the mappings work?
As mentioned before, not all JPA specification is implemented. For example, a known issue is that #Column annotations are still mandatory in jOOQ:
https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/4586
There might be other such limitations, which could be considered bugs. Feel free to report them if you want to continue down this path: https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/new/choose
But things like #MappedSuperclass or #Type are unlikely to ever be supported by jOOQ.
Step 1: Do you really need it?
You've decided to create and run your query with jOOQ. I imagine your actual query is much more complex than what you're showing, because for that particular query, you don't need jOOQ.
Do you really need to map to Hibernate entities? Because even when you use Hibernate, the recommended approach is to use entities only when you're going to modify them and store the delta back to the database. If that's the case, see step 2 below. If it's not the case, why not use jOOQ's own mapping functionality to work with any style of jOOQ supported POJO?
Step 2: Use Hibernate to execute the jOOQ query
If you're using jOOQ only to build a rather complex SQL query and you need Hibernate entities as a result, then use Hibernate to execute the jOOQ query as documented here. A small utility should be enough:
public static <E> List<E> nativeQuery(EntityManager em, org.jooq.Query query, Class<E> type) {
Query result = em.createNativeQuery(query.getSQL(), type);
List<Object> values = query.getBindValues();
for (int i = 0; i < values.size(); i++)
result.setParameter(i + 1, values.get(i));
return result.getResultList();
}

Bean validation #ElementCollection and #Version conflict and fails validation

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.

#Transient not working in hibernate

I am using hibernate 4.1.9.
My code is
#Transient
private String ldapIdTemp;
package is
import javax.persistence.Transient;
Still in hibernate query, it is not working and putting the attribute in the query.
part of query snippet (assetasset0_.ldapIdTemp as ldapIdTemp16_0_, )
I am not sure what I am doing wrong.

Can you try creating setter and getter for the field and annotate the get method with #Transient, as follows:
private String ldapIdTemp;
#Transient
public String getLdapIdTemp() {
return ldapIdTemp;
}
public void setLdapIdTemp(String ldapIdTemp) {
this.ldapIdTemp = ldapIdTemp;
}

Much depends on how you "integrated" this field in your Entity or class hierarchy. Moreover, field vs. property-access could cause an issue for your setting. See this post for a detailed explanation.
In your case, I could imagine that you either:
mixed field and property-access in your entity inheritance strategy
use XML-based configuration for Hibernate in your application.
In both cases the JPA 2.0/2.1 specification clearly states in Section 2.3.1:
It is an error if a default access type cannot be determined and an access type is not explicitly specified
by means of annotations or the XML descriptor. The behavior of applications that mix the placement of
annotations on fields and properties within an entity hierarchy without explicitly specifying the
Access annotation is undefined.
Please check that your persistent Entity classes have either field OR property-based annotations.

Check the #Transient annotation fully qualified name.
It can be from either,
org.springframework.data.annotation.Transient or javax.persistence.Transient.
Try to use javax.persistence.Transient.

Persisting third-party classes with no ID's

Say I have the following Java class, which is owned by a vendor so I can't change it:
public class Entry {
private String user;
private String city;
// ...
// About 10 other fields
// ...
// Getters, setters, etc.
}
I would like to persist it to a table, using JPA 2.0 (OpenJPA implementation). I cannot annotate this class (as it is not mine), so I'm using orm.xml to do that.
I'm creating a table containing a column per field, plus another column called ID. Then, I'm creating a sequence for it.
My question is: is it at all possible to tell JPA that the ID that I would like to use for this entity doesn't even exist as a member attribute in the Entry class? How do I go about creating a JPA entity that will allow me to persist instances of this class?
EDIT
I am aware of the strategy of extending the class and adding an ID property it. However, I'm looking for a solution that doesn't involve extending this class, because I need this solution to also be applicable for the case when it's not only one class that I have to persist, but a collection of interlinked classes - none of which has any ID property. In such a scenario, extending doesn't work out.

Eventually, I ended up doing the following:
public class EntryWrapper {
#Id
private long id;
#Embedded
private Entry entry;
}
So, I am indeed wrapping the entity but differently from the way that had been suggested. As the Entry class is vendor-provided, I did all its ORM work in an orm.xml file. When persisting, I persist EntryWrapper.

I don't have much experience with JPA, but I wouldn't extend your base classes, instead I would wrap them:
public class PersistMe<T> {
#Id
private long id;
private T objToWrap;
public(T objToWrap) {
this.objToWrap = objToWrap;
}
}
I can't test it, if it doesn't work let me know so I can delete the answer.

Can't I use #Value annotation with #Transient annotation?

I have a class to map a table for using hibernate. There are some variable I want to ignore for mapping to use as constant. And I want to load constant value from properties so I code it like this:
#Transient
#Value("${something.value}")
private int MY_VALUE;
But, the value of MY_VALUE is always set to 0. Can't I use #Transient annotation with #Value annotation? Or I missed something else?

Those two annotations belong in different domains.
#Transient belongs to an entity, while #Value belongs to Spring Beans. Entities are managed by JPA / Hibernate, Spring Beans are managed by Spring. It is not a good idea to mix the two.
You could achieve this by using the #Configurable annotation and AspectJ compilation or Load Time Weaving, but I would strongly advise against such a hack. Use a Spring Bean to hold a #Value, not an entity!

You use #Value to specify a property value to load when Spring creates the bean.
However, if you are using Hibernate to load data from a database, Spring is not instantiating these classes for you. So your #Value annotation has no effect.
I would suggest injecting the #Value into the DAO that loads these entities from Hibernate, something like
public class FooDao {
#Value("...")
private int yourConfiguredValue;
public getFoo() {
Foo foo = sessionFactory.getCurrentSession().get(...);
foo.setYourValue(yourConfiguredValue);
return foo;
}
}

In my scenario I have a class Employee which has relation with class Organization.
I don't want to serialize a whole dependent object(Organization), rather serialize a single parameter of organization(e.g. orgID).
I tried following:
#Transient
#value("#{target.orgId.id}")
private UUID org_Id;
but it didnt work. So i used a simple getter mehtod instead of a field variable as follows:
#JsonIgnore
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, optional = false)
#JoinColumn(name = "orgID")
private Organization orgId;
#JsonProperty("orgId")
public UUID getOrg_ID() {
return orgId.getId();
}
it worked and i got simple orgId field in response serialized by Jackson.
It seems Jackson work with getters without considering a field variable is declared or not corresponding to that getter method.