[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: AW: AW: [eclipselink-dev] Test EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.testSetRollbackOnly on NetWeaver: Problem with JTA/non-JTA data sources
|
Hi Tom,
> > Could it be that EclipseLink switches to a non-transactional mode if
> the PC is marked for rollback?
> >
> > If that's the case, I would like to question that this behavior is
> correct. (One could argue that it doesn't really matter which
> connection is used for reading as the tx will be rolled back eventually
> anyhow).
>
> I am not sure the specification has any opinion about whether this
> behavior is
> correct, so I guess we have to figure out what we think is best.
I don't think either that the JPA spec says anything about it. I will have
a closer look at the JCA spec - maybe we can find something in there...
But yes, let's assume we have to figure out ourselves what should be done.
> To me, the transaction is in rollback-only mode and therefore it is
> probably not
> correct to try to get transactional data. Based on that assumption, I
> think the
> non-transactional read is probably as good a choice as we have
> available.
I have quite a contrary understanding of the rollback-only mode. In my
opinion it is simply a marker that the transaction must eventually be
rolled back. In particular, the transaction is still in progress until
the rollback actually occurs.
I think that the application can expect the same level of connection sharing
with JPA as it would have if it accessed the data sources directly. That is,
it should end up with the same connection for the entire scope of the
transaction.
It seems also quite a valid assumption to me that the app should be able to see
uncommitted data that has been written within the same transaction, whether the
transaction is marked for rollback or not.
Best regards,
Sabine
Sabine Heider
SAP AG
Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipselink-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipselink-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Ware
> Sent: Mittwoch, 9. Dezember 2009 16:39
> To: Dev mailing list for Eclipse Persistence Services
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: [eclipselink-dev] Test
> EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.testSetRollbackOnly on NetWeaver: Problem
> with JTA/non-JTA data sources
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
>
> Goerler, Adrian wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> >> - we need to check isOneServer before running the assert
> >
> > I am actually, not sure I am understanding. Are you suggesting we
> should skip the assert on #990 in case we are on server?
>
> After looking further at this issue, I think we probably need to change
> the
> assert to somehow determine if the transaction is in rollback-only mode
> in
> another way. I think the following would allow the test to pass, but
> ideally
> we would change the assertion in some other way.
>
> if (!isOnServer){
> String eName = (String)em.createQuery("SELECT
> e.firstName FROM
> Employee e where e.id = " + emp2.getId()).getSingleResult();
> assertTrue("Failed to keep txn open for set
> RollbackOnly",
> eName.equals(newName));
> }
>
> I cannot think of a way to test the transaction's state that will work
> both in
> JTA and non-JTA. Can you?
>
>
> >> - we should determine if the EE spec indicates what the expected
> behavior is here, so we know if this is just a test bug, or if it
> exposes an issue on NetWeaver.
> >
> > Sabine observed that the flush (#980) is executed on a connection
> obtained from the JTA data source while the query (#989) is executed on
> a connection obtained from the non-JTA data source. It appears that
> once the persistence context is marked for rollback only, EclipseLink
> goes non-transactional. But the test asserts that EclipseLink hangs on
> the transactional data source (sees the change on the transactional
> data source).
> >
> > Could it be that EclipseLink switches to a non-transactional mode if
> the PC is marked for rollback?
> >
> > If that's the case, I would like to question that this behavior is
> correct. (One could argue that it doesn't really matter which
> connection is used for reading as the tx will be rolled back eventually
> anyhow).
>
> I am not sure the specification has any opinion about whether this
> behavior is
> correct, so I guess we have to figure out what we think is best.
>
> To me, the transaction is in rollback-only mode and therefore it is
> probably not
> correct to try to get transactional data. Based on that assumption, I
> think the
> non-transactional read is probably as good a choice as we have
> available.
>
> Admittedly, in an extended persistence context the behavior is
> inconsistent with
> that assumption (since the assert passes in extended persistence
> context) - we
> do a non-transactional read that gets a cache hit that returns
> uncommitted data.
>
> The question I have is whether it is even reasonable for a user to to
> write a
> query in the rollback only state. Based on that, I think we should
> just fix the
> assertion to do a better check if we can figure one out.
>
> -Tom
>
>
> > -Adrian
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Adrian Görler
> > SAP AG
> >
> > Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
> http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: eclipselink-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipselink-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Tom Ware
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Dezember 2009 17:55
> > An: Dev mailing list for Eclipse Persistence Services
> > Betreff: Re: AW: [eclipselink-dev] Test
> EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.testSetRollbackOnly on NetWeaver: Problem
> with JTA/non-JTA data sources
> >
> > Hi Adrian,
> >
> > The reason the test passes on other servers can be observed in the
> comment:
> >
> > 987: // Query may fail in server as connection marked for rollback.
> >
> > Basically, in the server case, we do not get to the statement:
> >
> > 993: assertTrue("Failed to keep txn open for set RollbackOnly",
> > eName.equals(newName));
> >
> > Instead, an exception is thrown when we run the query and we get
> to:
> >
> > 995: } catch (Exception ignore) {}
> >
> > The likely means the following:
> >
> > - we need to check isOneServer before running the assert
> > - we should determine if the EE spec indicates what the expected
> behavior is
> > here, so we know if this is just a test bug, or if it exposes an
> issue on NetWeaver.
> >
> > -Tom
> >
> > Goerler, Adrian wrote:
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> I just reran the test. This is the current stack trace:
> >>
> >> at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
> >> at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)
> >> at
> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.tests.jpa.advanced.EntityManagerJUnitTe
> stSuite.testSetRollbackOnly(EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.java:990)
> >> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> >> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.ja
> va:39)
> >> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccesso
> rImpl.java:25)
> >> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
> >> at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:168)
> >> at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:134)
> >> at
> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.framework.junit.JUnitTestCase.runBareSe
> rver(JUnitTestCase.java:463)
> >> at
> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.framework.server.TestRunnerBean.runTest
> (TestRunnerBean.java:87)
> >> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor267.invoke(Unknown Source)
> >> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccesso
> rImpl.java:25)
> >> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 1. update some test data and flush the changes to the database
> >> 977-980:
> >> Employee emp2 = (Employee)result.get(1);
> >> String newName = ""+System.currentTimeMillis();
> >> emp2.setFirstName(newName);
> >> em.flush();
> >>
> >>>> 2. provoke an OptimisticLockException so that the current
> transaction is marked for rollback
> >> 981-984:
> >> emp2.setLastName("Whatever");
> >> emp2.setVersion(0);
> >> try{
> >> em.flush();
> >>
> >>>> 3. read the test data updated in step 1) and assert that the
> changes are there
> >> 985-990:
> >> }catch (Exception ex){
> >> em.clear(); //prevent the flush again
> >> // Query may fail in server as connection marked for
> rollback.
> >> try {
> >> String eName = (String)em.createQuery("SELECT
> e.firstName FROM Employee e where e.id = " +
> emp2.getId()).getSingleResult();
> >> assertTrue("Failed to keep txn open for set
> RollbackOnly", eName.equals(newName));
> >>
> >>
> >> We think that for the flush on 980, a connection from the JTA data
> source is being used and for the query on line 989 a connection from
> the non-JTA data source.
> >>
> >> Hence the result of the flush on 980 is not visible to the query on
> 989.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >> ====
> >>
> >> Adrian Görler
> >> SAP AG
> >>
> >> Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
> http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: eclipselink-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipselink-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Tom Ware
> >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Dezember 2009 16:09
> >> An: Dev mailing list for Eclipse Persistence Services
> >> Betreff: Re: [eclipselink-dev] Test
> EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.testSetRollbackOnly on NetWeaver: Problem
> with JTA/non-JTA data sources
> >>
> >> Hi Sabine,
> >>
> >> The line numbers in my test do not correspond with the ones in
> your exception
> >> trace and I cannot tell from the error message which assertion is
> failing for
> >> you. What is on the line that causes the exception for you?
> >> (EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.java:994)
> >>
> >> -Tom
> >>
> >> Kevin Yuan wrote:
> >>> Hi Sabine,
> >>> This test passed on both JTA and non-JTA datasource on both
> WebLogic and
> >>> WebSphere, I don't think that's EclipseLink behaves incorrect in
> this
> >>> situation, but I am not familiar with NetWeaver server. Probably
> you
> >>> have to follow on the setting with the server. I will let you know
> if I
> >>> find more info.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Kevin
> >>>
> >>> Heider, Sabine wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> does anyone have an opinion on the error described below?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm under the impression that EclipseLink behaves incorrectly in
> this
> >>>> situation, but it could also be that there is a problem with our
> >>>> application server that I would have to follow on.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks and best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sabine
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *From:* eclipselink-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:eclipselink-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
> *Heider, Sabine
> >>>> *Sent:* Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2009 12:39
> >>>> *To:* Dev mailing list for Eclipse Persistence Services
> >>>> *Subject:* [eclipselink-dev] Test
> >>>> EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.testSetRollbackOnly on NetWeaver:
> Problem
> >>>> with JTA/non-JTA data sources
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> when running on the NetWeaver server, the test
> >>>> EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.testSetRollbackOnly fails with the
> >>>> following assertion error:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: eName was
> 'testRefreshRemoved'
> >>>> but expected '1259661366483'
> >>>>
> >>>> at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
> >>>>
> >>>> at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)
> >>>>
> >>>> at
> >>>>
> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.tests.jpa.advanced.EntityManagerJUnitTe
> stSuite.testSetRollbackOnly(EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.java:994)
> >>>>
> >>>> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> Method)
> >>>>
> >>>> at
> >>>>
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.ja
> va:39)
> >>>>
> >>>> at
> >>>>
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccesso
> rImpl.java:25)
> >>>>
> >>>> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
> >>>>
> >>>> at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:168)
> >>>>
> >>>> at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:134)
> >>>>
> >>>> at
> >>>>
> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.framework.junit.JUnitTestCase.runBareSe
> rver(JUnitTestCase.java:463)
> >>>>
> >>>> at
> >>>>
> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.framework.server.TestRunnerBean.runTest
> (TestRunnerBean.java:87)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What the test basically does is that it executes the following
> steps
> >>>> inside a single JTA transaction:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. update some test data and flush the changes to the database
> >>>> 2. provoke an OptimisticLockException so that the current
> >>>> transaction is marked for rollback
> >>>> 3. read the test data updated in step 1) and assert that the
> >>>> changes are there
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Step 3) fails on NetWeaver - the query can still be executed but
> it
> >>>> returns the unmodified (i.e. committed) data.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I did some debugging and found out that step 1) uses the data
> source
> >>>> from PersistenceUnitInfo. getJtaDataSource(), while in step 3) the
> >>>> data source is obtained from PersistenceUnitInfo.
> >>>> getNonJtaDataSource(). Thus we ended up with two different
> >>>> connections, and as transaction isolation
> TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED
> >>>> is used we don't see the uncommitted changes from the flush
> operation
> >>>> before.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems wrong to me that EclipseLink uses the non-JTA data source
> in
> >>>> that situation, but I'm unable to decide whether it is a general
> >>>> problem or rather caused by some peculiarity of our server. What
> >>>> happens on different application servers?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sabine
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *Sabine Heider
> >>>> **SAP AG
> >>>>
> >>>> *Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
> >>>> http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> eclipselink-dev mailing list
> >>>> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> >>>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> eclipselink-dev mailing list
> >>> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> eclipselink-dev mailing list
> >> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> eclipselink-dev mailing list
> >> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-dev mailing list
> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
