DDevelopment & Design

Hibernate hbm2ddl won’t create schema before creating tables

Situation I have a local H2 in memory database for integration tests and an Oracle db for production. I do not control the Oracle DB model. The in memory H2 database is created automatically by adding <prop key=”hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto”>update&l…Situation I have a local H2 in memory database for integration tests and an Oracle db for production. I do not control the Oracle DB model. The in memory H2 database is created automatically by adding <prop key=”hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto”>update&l…

Situation I have a local H2 in memory database for integration tests and an Oracle db for production. I do not control the Oracle DB model. The in memory H2 database is created automatically by adding

update

  to hibernate properties in AnnotationSessionFactoryBean. The definition of the entity stored in DB points to a schema

@Entity
@Table(name = "business_operations", schema = "sowa")
public class BusinessOperation {
...

The problem When creating the H2 database, Hibernate won’t create the schema before creating tables. As a result it will show errors when trying to create the tables in non existing schema and fail in any query (queries will be run with sowa.business_operations).

2011-01-18 15:13:30,884 INFO [org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaUpdate] - Running hbm2ddl schema update
2011-01-18 15:13:30,885 INFO [org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaUpdate] - fetching database metadata
2011-01-18 15:13:30,915 INFO [org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaUpdate] - updating schema
2011-01-18 15:13:30,927 INFO [org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.DatabaseMetadata] - table not found: business_operations
2011-01-18 15:13:30,941 ERROR [org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaUpdate] - Unsuccessful: create table sowa.business_operations 
2011-01-18 15:13:30,942 ERROR [org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaUpdate] - 
Schema "SOWA" not found;

Turns out this bug is reported and open since 2006:

link. The solution The solution to this problem is to create the schema before hibernate’s hbm2ddl turns on. That would be easy with H2 if we could tell H2 to initialize itself like this:

database.url=jdbc:h2:mem:;INIT=RUNSCRIPT FROM 'src/main/resources/scripts/create.sql';

All seems nice, except H2 RUNSCRIPT FROM command doesn’t work with relative resources as you may expect. Fortunatelly INIT allows us to give any commands, not just point to a script, so this little change will solve the problem:

database.url=jdbc:h2:mem:;INIT=create schema IF NOT EXISTS sowa

Yeah, I know it’s obvious and simple stupid, but looking at all the questions on all the mailing lists in google I may have just saved a little bit of somebody’s time.

Solution Architect @ TouK

— Previous article

Creating charts in GWT was never so easy. (OFC GWT)

Next article —

Insert into .. select... na oraclu gubi dane.

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Custom SonarQube rules for Unit Tests

It's a tutorial about creating new rules for SonarQube analysis to be applied to Unit Tests. It is not trivial and involves a few tricky database steps, so I want to share my tutorial about it.It's a tutorial about creating new rules for SonarQube analysis to be applied to Unit Tests. It is not trivial and involves a few tricky database steps, so I want to share my tutorial about it.
DDevelopment & Design

Context menu or Action buttons ?

Recently I was drawn into one of those UI "religious" disputes that has no easy answers and usually both sides are right. One of our web developers was trying out new web tech (with pretty rich widget library) and started to question himself about some basic usability decisions. The low level problem in this case is usually brought to "which widget should I use ?". I'm not fond of bringing the usability problems to questions: Should I use Tabs over Menu ? Or should I use Context menu instead of buttons panel ? But sometimes if time is crucial factor and other usability levels are by default not addressed at all - better developer that asks those basic questions than developer that do not question himself at all.
DDevelopment & Design

Thought static method can’t be easy to mock, stub nor track? Wrong!

No matter why, no matter is it a good idea. Sometimes one just wants to check or it's necessary to be done. Mock a static method, woot? Impossibru!

In pure Java world it is still a struggle. But Groovy allows you to do that really simple. Well, not groovy alone, but with a great support of Spock.

Lets move on straight to the example. To catch some context we have an abstract for the example needs. A marketing project with a set of offers. One to many.

import spock.lang.Specification

class OfferFacadeSpec extends Specification {

    OfferFacade facade = new OfferFacade()

    def setup() {
        GroovyMock(Project, global: true)
    }

    def 'delegates an add offer call to the domain with proper params'() {
        given:
            Map params = [projId: projectId, name: offerName]

        when:
            Offer returnedOffer = facade.add(params)

        then:
            1 * Project.addOffer(projectId, _) >> { projId, offer -> offer }
            returnedOffer.name == params.name

        where:
            projectId | offerName
            1         | 'an Offer'
            15        | 'whasup!?'
            123       | 'doskonała oferta - kup teraz!'
    }
}
So we test a facade responsible for handling "add offer to the project" call triggered  somewhere in a GUI.
We want to ensure that static method Project.addOffer(long, Offer) will receive correct params when java.util.Map with user form input comes to the facade.add(params).
This is unit test, so how Project.addOffer() works is out of scope. Thus we want to stub it.

The most important is a GroovyMock(Project, global: true) statement.
What it does is modifing Project class to behave like a Spock's mock. 
GroovyMock() itself is a method inherited from Specification.  The global flag is necessary to enable mocking static methods.
However when one comes to the need of mocking static method, author of Spock Framework advice to consider redesigning of implementation. It's not a bad advice, I must say.

Another important thing are assertions at then: block. First one checks an interaction, if the Project.addOffer() method was called exactly once, with a 1st argument equal to the projectId and some other param (we don't have an object instance yet to assert anything about it).
Right shit operator leads us to the stub which replaces original method implementation by such statement.
As a good stub it does nothing. The original method definition has return type Offer. The stub needs to do the same. So an offer passed as the 2nd argument is just returned.
Thanks to this we can assert about name property if it's equal with the value from params. If no return was designed the name could be checked inside the stub Closure, prefixed with an assert keyword.

Worth of  mentioning is that if you want to track interactions of original static method implementation without replacing it, then you should try using GroovySpy instead of GroovyMock.

Unfortunately static methods declared at Java object can't be treated in such ways. Though regular mocks and whole goodness of Spock can be used to test pure Java code, which is awesome anyway :)No matter why, no matter is it a good idea. Sometimes one just wants to check or it's necessary to be done. Mock a static method, woot? Impossibru!

In pure Java world it is still a struggle. But Groovy allows you to do that really simple. Well, not groovy alone, but with a great support of Spock.

Lets move on straight to the example. To catch some context we have an abstract for the example needs. A marketing project with a set of offers. One to many.

import spock.lang.Specification

class OfferFacadeSpec extends Specification {

    OfferFacade facade = new OfferFacade()

    def setup() {
        GroovyMock(Project, global: true)
    }

    def 'delegates an add offer call to the domain with proper params'() {
        given:
            Map params = [projId: projectId, name: offerName]

        when:
            Offer returnedOffer = facade.add(params)

        then:
            1 * Project.addOffer(projectId, _) >> { projId, offer -> offer }
            returnedOffer.name == params.name

        where:
            projectId | offerName
            1         | 'an Offer'
            15        | 'whasup!?'
            123       | 'doskonała oferta - kup teraz!'
    }
}
So we test a facade responsible for handling "add offer to the project" call triggered  somewhere in a GUI.
We want to ensure that static method Project.addOffer(long, Offer) will receive correct params when java.util.Map with user form input comes to the facade.add(params).
This is unit test, so how Project.addOffer() works is out of scope. Thus we want to stub it.

The most important is a GroovyMock(Project, global: true) statement.
What it does is modifing Project class to behave like a Spock's mock. 
GroovyMock() itself is a method inherited from Specification.  The global flag is necessary to enable mocking static methods.
However when one comes to the need of mocking static method, author of Spock Framework advice to consider redesigning of implementation. It's not a bad advice, I must say.

Another important thing are assertions at then: block. First one checks an interaction, if the Project.addOffer() method was called exactly once, with a 1st argument equal to the projectId and some other param (we don't have an object instance yet to assert anything about it).
Right shit operator leads us to the stub which replaces original method implementation by such statement.
As a good stub it does nothing. The original method definition has return type Offer. The stub needs to do the same. So an offer passed as the 2nd argument is just returned.
Thanks to this we can assert about name property if it's equal with the value from params. If no return was designed the name could be checked inside the stub Closure, prefixed with an assert keyword.

Worth of  mentioning is that if you want to track interactions of original static method implementation without replacing it, then you should try using GroovySpy instead of GroovyMock.

Unfortunately static methods declared at Java object can't be treated in such ways. Though regular mocks and whole goodness of Spock can be used to test pure Java code, which is awesome anyway :)