private void doSomething(someProcessModel process){
CustomerModel customer = process.getCustomerModel();
customer.getFoos().stream()
.filter(foo -> foo.getCountryCode().equals(process.getCountryCode()))
.findFirst()
.ifPresent(foo -> {
if(foo.getSomeNumber() == null){
foo.setSomeNumber("1234567");
modelService.save(foo);
}
});
}
As seen in the code snippet above, I have a 'CustomerModel' that has an attribute 'Foos'. It's a one-to-many relationship. As you can see I have done some filtering and in the end, I want to update the value of 'someNumber' attribute of 'Foo' if it is null. I've confirmed that everything is working as the "someNumber" attribute's value is updated during the debugging. It doesn't save at all as I have done my checking in the HMC. I have also validated that the Interceptor doesn't have any condition that would throw an error. There is nothing being shown in the log either.
I am wondering is it a legal approach to do the "modelService.save()' inside the 'ifPresent()' method? What could be the possible issue here?
I have found the root cause now as I have face the same issue again.
Context to my original question
To give more context to my original question, the #doSomething method resides in a Hybris Business Process action class and I have ended the action prematurely while I am debugging it (by stopping the debugging) once the #doSomething method is ran.
Root cause
The mentioned problem happened when I was debugging the action class. I assumed that the ModelService#save will persist the current state of the business process once it has been ran. However, the Hybris OOTB business process will do a rollback if there is any error (and I believe it was caused by me stopping the debugging half-way).
SAP Commerce Documentation:
All actions are performed inside their own transaction. This means that changes made inside the action bean run method are rolled back in case of an error.
Solution
Let the action runs completely!
Good to know
Based on the SAP Documentation and this blog post, there will be times that we will need to bypass a business process rollback even though there is an exception being thrown and there are ways to achieve that. More info can be found in this SAP Commerce Documentation and the mentioned blog post.
However, in some circumstances it may be required to let a business exception reach the outside but also commit the transaction and deal with the exception outside. Therefore, it is possible to make the task engine not roll back the changes made during a task which failed.
You have to be cautious with a list in models as they are immutable, you have to set the whole new list. Also you called save only on a particular model, which changes its Jalo reference, that's why your list is not updated. Mutating stream and collecting it in the end will create new list that's why you can stream over the list directly from the model.
private void doSomething(someProcessModel process){
CustomerModel customer = process.getCustomerModel();
ArrayList<FooModel> foos = doSomethingOnFoos(customer.getFoos());
customer.setFoos(foos);
modelService.saveAll(foos, customer);
}
//compare the value you know exists with something that might be NULL as equals can handle that, but not the other way around
private ArrayList<FooModel> doSomethingOnFoos(ArrayList<FooModel> fooList) {
return fooList.stream()
.filter(Objects::nonNull)
.filter(foo -> process.getCountryCode().equals(foo.getCountryCode()))
.filter(foo -> Objects.isNull(foo.getSomeNumber()))
.map(foo -> foo.setSomeNumber(1234))
.collect(toList());
}
Related
RaceRegistration domain has embedded raceParticipant and raceParticipant has a field bibNumber which is Integer.
I have a method for nulling out all bibNumbers of registrations but without flush:true in save, the nulling out of bibs dont work. The bibs are not set to null.
def nullifyBibNumbers(Long id){
...
def regss = RaceRegistration.createCriteria().list(){
eq('compositeEvent', event)
}
regss.each{ r ->
r.raceParticipant.bibNumber = null
r.save()
}
render "Bibs resetted!"
}
If i add flush:true then the bibs are set to null.
regss.each{ r ->
r.raceParticipant.bibNumber = null
r.save(flush: true)
}
I am wondering why you need flush in order for the value to be set to null? I am guessing the problem is with regard to how i am obtain the registration list using createCriteria(). I appreciate any help in this dilemma i am facing. Thanks!
As you probably figured out, save(flush: true) forces Hibernate to write any pending changes to the database. Without the explicit flush, you're relying on a Hibernate transaction to automatically flush when the transaction commits.
The reason only an explicit flush is working for you is because you're not calling save() within a transaction.
The cleanest fix is to create a Grails service, put nullifyBibNumbers() in it, and make the service transactional. That will cause nullifyBibNumbers() to get wrapped in a transaction so that you can use save() without an explicit flush.
If nullifyBibNumbers() is already in a service, you can add #Transactional to the service class, just keep in mind that it will make all methods (perhaps only the public ones?) transactional. Having said that, you can use #NotTransactional on a method to disable transactions.
The value is null in your domain object. But you are talking about null in the database, I guess?
It shouldn't matter. This is basic ORM. As a developer you don't care about when the flush is done. Typically this would be at the end of a transaction. The ORM will then flush all of the changes for that transaction at once.
It works on what is called the first-level cache during the transaction, and tries to avoid going to the db until it is explicitly requested (flush:true) or required (end of transaction).
Without the using of
save(flush: true)
The object will not be persisted immediately.
You can follow the documentation link and see the following information:
The save method informs the persistence context that an instance
should be saved or updated. The object will not be persisted
immediately unless the flush argument is used.
Related to the null issue you are facing make sure that the following condition are met.
The save method returns null if validation failed and the instance was
not persisted, or the instance itself if successful.
You do not need the flush in order for the value to be set to null.
The flush only care of a quick update of the database.
ok i fixed this problem using HQL instead of domain saves. Still i would appreciate why save() didnt work and save(flush:true) saved the data. Thanks!
RaceRegistration.executeUpdate("update RaceRegistration set raceParticipant.bibNumber = null where compositeEvent.id = :ev", [ev: id])
I'm using Grails 2.5.1, and I have a controller calling a service method which occasionally results in a StaleObjectStateException. The code in the service method has a try catch around the obj.save() call which just ignores the exception. However, whenever one of these conflicts occurs there's still an error printed in the log, and an error is returned to the client.
My GameController code:
def finish(String gameId) {
def model = [:]
Game game = gameService.findById(gameId)
// some other work
// this line is where the exception points to - NOT a line in GameService:
model.game = GameSummaryView.fromGame(gameService.scoreGame(game))
withFormat {
json {
render(model as JSON)
}
}
}
My GameService code:
Game scoreGame(Game game) {
game.rounds.each { Round round ->
// some other work
try {
scoreRound(round)
if (round.save()) {
updated = true
}
} catch (StaleObjectStateException ignore) {
// ignore and retry
}
}
}
The stack-trace says the exception generates from my GameController.finish method, it doesn't point to any code within my GameService.scoreGame method. This implies to me that Grails checks for staleness when a transaction is started, NOT when an object save/update is attempted?
I've come across this exception many times, and generally I fix it by not traversing the Object graph.
For example, in this case, I'd remove the game.rounds reference and replace it with:
def rounds = Round.findAllByGameId(game.id)
rounds.each {
// ....
}
But that would mean that staleness isn't checked when the transaction is created, and it isn't always practical and in my opinion kind of defeats the purpose of Grails lazy collections. If I wanted to manage all the associations myself I would.
I've read the documentation regarding Pessimistic and Optimistic Locking, but my code follows the examples there.
I'd like to understand more about how/when Grails (GORM) checks for staleness and where to handle it?
You don't show or discuss any transaction configuration, but that's probably what's causing the confusion. Based on what you're seeing, I'm guessing that you have #Transactional annotations in your controller. I say that because if that's the case, a transaction starts there, and (assuming your service is transactional) the service method joins the current transaction.
In the service you call save() but you don't flush the session. That's better for performance, especially if there were another part of the workflow where you make other changes - you wouldn't want to push two or more sets of updates to each object when you can push all the changes at once. Since you don't flush, and since the transaction doesn't commit at the end of the method as it would if the controller hadn't started the transaction, the updates are only pushed when the controller method finishes and the transaction commits.
You'd be better off moving all of your transactional (and business) logic to the service and remove every trace of transactions from your controllers. Avoid "fixing" this by eagerly flushing unless you're willing to take the performance hit.
As for the staleness check - it's fairly simple. When Hibernate generates the SQL to make the changes, it's of the form UPDATE tablename SET col1=?, col2=?, ..., colN=? where id=? and version=?. The id will obviously match, but if the version has incremented, then the version part of the where clause won't match and the JDBC update count will be 0, not 1, and this is interpreted to mean that someone else made a change between your reading and updating the data.
MVC Project using EF 5 code first and .NET 4.5.
I was looking for a way to wrap dbContext and SimpleMembershipProvider on a single transaction. I tried to use TransactionScope but since the membership provider will open another connection I get an exception (MSDTC on server 'servername' is unavailable).
So I though I could use ObjectContext.Connection.BeginTransaction instead.
The membership provider won't be part of the transaction but the idea is to have it somewhere where if it fails the transaction won't be committed.
Book bk1 = default(Book);
Book bk2 = default(Book);
object obc = (IObjectContextAdapter)dbContext;
obc.ObjectContext.Connection.Open();
using (tx == obc.ObjectContext.Connection.BeginTransaction) {
bk1 = new Book {
Name = "Book 1 Name",
Location = "USA"
};
dbContext.Books.Add(bk1);
dbContext.SaveChanges();
bk2 = new Book {
Name = "Book 2 Name. Book one Id is: " + bk1.Id,
Location = "USA"
};
dbContext.Books.Add(bk2);
dbContext.SaveChanges();
// this is not part of the transaction,
// however if it trhows an exception the transaction is aborted.
// I'm assuming that if we got here, the commit won't fail...
// But is it really true?
WebSecurity.CreateUserAndAccount("username", "123456");
tx.Commit();
}
Anyways, based on the above code:
If WebSecurity.CreateUserAndAccount fails, the whole thing fails, which is expected.
If any of the SaveChanges method fails, once again the whole thing fails because we dont get to the point where CreateUserAndAccount is executed.
This whole thing bring me to a question:
Is it safe? What I mean is:
Is there any possibility the "Commit" method will throw an exception(of fail somehow) after we successfully execute DbContext.SaveChanges ? If it happens we will endup with an orphan user because the provider is not part of the transaction.
I appreciate any comments or advice on this.
Quick note:
There is this nice article explaining why I have to cast dbContext to IObjectContextadapter instead of using its own connection property but I can't find it anymore.
Yes, Commit can certainly throw. One trivial example is if the connection drops. There are other cases, of course.
You have a few choices:
Transactions on the same DB won't escalate to distributed if the connection is shared. So you could use one connection for both EF and your WebSecurity connection.
Start the distributed transaction controller on the server and live with the escalation. Not the worst thing in the world.
Instead of using a transaction, change the order of operations such that a partially successful operation can be completed or undone later. E.g., detect and clean up "orphan" users.
In my app, I have a code like this:
// 1
Foo.get(123).example = "my example" // as expected, don't change value in db
// 2
Foo.get(123).bars.each { bar ->
bar.value *= -1 // it's changing "value" field in database!! WHY?
}
note: Foo and Bar are tables in my DB
Why is gorm saving in database is second case?
I don't have any save() method in code.
Tks
SOLVED:
I need to use read() to get a readonly session.
(Foo.discard() also works)
Doc: http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/5.%20Object%20Relational%20Mapping%20%28GORM%29.html#5.1.1%20Basic%20CRUD
(In the first case, I guess I made mistest)
Both should save, so the first example appears to be a bug. Grails requests run in the context of an OpenSessionInView interceptor. This opens a Hibernate session at the beginning of each request and binds it to the thread, and flushes and closes it at the end of the request. This helps a lot with lazy loading, but can have unexpected consequences like you're seeing.
Although you're not explicitly saving, the logic in the Hibernate flush involves finding all attached instances that have been modified and pushing the updates to the database. This is a performance optimization since if each change had been pushed it would slow things down. So everything that can wait until a flush is queued up.
So the only time you need to explicitly save is for new instances, and when you want to check validation errors.
preface note: I'm just starting to learn Grails, so I'm sure there are many other problems and room for optimization.
I've got two domains, a parent (Collection) and child (Event), in a one-to-many mapping. I'm trying to code an integration test for the deletion of children. Prior to the code in question, I've successfully created a parent and three children. The point where I'm having problems is getting a single child in preparation to delete it. The first line of my sample code is only there because of my rudimentary attempt to troubleshoot.
// lines 95-100 of my EventIntegrationTests.groovy file
// delete a single event
assertEquals("2nd Event", event2.title) // passes
def foundEvent = Event.get(event2.id) // no apparent problems
assertEquals("2nd Event", foundEvent.title) // FAILS (line #98)
foundEvent.delete()
assertFalse Event.exists(foundEvent.id)
The error message I'm getting is:
Cannot get property 'title' on null object
java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot get property 'title' on null object
at edu.learninggrails.EventIntegrationTests.testEventsDelete(EventIntegrationTests.groovy:98)
What should my next troubleshooting steps be? (Since the first assertEquals passes, event2 is clearly not null, so at this point I have no idea how to troubleshoot the failure of the second assertEquals.)
This is not evident from the code: did you persist event2 by calling save()? Get will try to retrieve it from the persistent storage (the in-memory database for example) and if the event wasn't saved, the retrieved instance will be null.
If you did save it, did the save go through OK? Calling event.save() will return false if there was something wrong while saving the item (like a validation error). Lastly, you might try calling event.save(flush:true) in case the Hibernate session doesn't handle this case as you might expect (I'm not entirely sure about this one, but it can't hurt to try).
Try to print or inspect the event2.id on line 97 and check if you actually have an id, if so check if you actually get an Event object on line 97.
I dont think you saved the parent and its children successfully. after you save, you should make sure that every object that was persisted has a non null id, in your test.
What you are seeing is you created the event2 with a title, but didnt save it. It passes the first assertion because you created it. When you do the get, null is returned because your save failed.
in general for DAO integration tests i do the following
Setup -- create all objects Ill use in the test.
Save -- assert that all ids on saved objects are NOT null.
Clear the hibernate session -- this is important because if you don't do it, objects can be in the session from the previous operations. In your real world scenario, you are probably going to start with a find, i.e. an empty session. In other words, you are not going to start with anything in the session. If you are you need to adjust this rule so that the session in the test, when you start the actual testing part, is the same as the session of the code in the wild
Load the objects on which you want to operate and do what you need to do.