DDevelopment & Design

JBoss Envers and Spring transaction managers

I’ve stumbled upon a bug with my configuration for JBoss Envers today, despite having integration tests all over the application. I have to admit, it casted a dark shadow of doubt about the value of all the tests for a moment. I’ve been practicing TDD since 2005, and frankly speaking, I should have been smarter than that. My fault was simple. I’ve started using Envers the right way, with exploratory tests and a prototype. Then I’ve deleted the prototype and created some integration tests using in-memory H2 that looked more or less like this example: @Test public void savingAndUpdatingPersonShouldCreateTwoHistoricalVersions() { //given Person person = createAndSavePerson(); String oldFirstName = person.getFirstName(); String newFirstName = oldFirstName + "NEW"; //when updatePersonWithNewName(person, newFirstName); //then verifyTwoHistoricalVersionsWereSaved(oldFirstName, newFirstName); } private Person createAndSavePerson() { Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction(); Person person = PersonFactory.createPerson(); session.save(person); transaction.commit(); return person; } private void updatePersonWithNewName(Person person, String newName) { Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction(); person.setFirstName(newName); session.update(person); transaction.commit(); } private void verifyTwoHistoricalVersionsWereSaved(String oldFirstName, String newFirstName) { List<Object[]> personRevisions = getPersonRevisions(); assertEquals(2, personRevisions.size()); assertEquals(oldFirstName, ((Person)personRevisions.get(0)[0]).getFirstName()); assertEquals(newFirstName, ((Person)personRevisions.get(1)[0]).getFirstName()); } private List<Object[]> getPersonRevisions() { Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction(); AuditReader auditReader = AuditReaderFactory.get(session); List<Object[]> personRevisions = auditReader.createQuery() .forRevisionsOfEntity(Person.class, false, true) .getResultList(); transaction.commit(); return personRevisions; } Because Envers inserts audit data when the transaction is commited (in a new temporary session), I thought I have to create and commit the transaction manually. And that is true to some point. My fault was that I didn’t have an end-to-end integration/acceptance test, that would call to entry point of the application (in this case a service which is called by GWT via RPC), because then I’d notice, that the Spring @Transactional annotation, and calling transaction.commit() are two, very different things. Spring @Transactional annotation will use a transaction manager configured for the application. Envers on the other hand is used by subscribing a listener to hibernate’s SessionFactory like this: <bean id="sessionFactory" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.annotation.AnnotationSessionFactoryBean" > ... <property name="eventListeners"> <map key-type="java.lang.String" value-type="org.hibernate.event.EventListeners"> <entry key="post-insert" value-ref="auditEventListener"/> <entry key="post-update" value-ref="auditEventListener"/> <entry key="post-delete" value-ref="auditEventListener"/> <entry key="pre-collection-update" value-ref="auditEventListener"/> <entry key="pre-collection-remove" value-ref="auditEventListener"/> <entry key="post-collection-recreate" value-ref="auditEventListener"/> </map> </property> </bean> <bean id="auditEventListener" class="org.hibernate.envers.event.AuditEventListener" /> Envers creates and collects something called AuditWorkUnits whenever you update/delete/insert audited entities, but audit tables are not populated until something calls AuditProcess.beforeCompletion, which makes sense. If you are using org.hibernate.transaction.JDBCTransaction manually, this is called on commit() when notifying all subscribed javax.transaction.Synchronization objects (and enver’s AuditProcess is one of them). The problem was, that I used a wrong transaction manager. <bean id="transactionManager" class="org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.DataSourceTransactionManager" > <property name="dataSource" ref="dataSource"/> </bean> This transaction manager doesn’t know anything about hibernate and doesn’t use org.hibernate.transaction.JDBCTransaction. While Synchronization is an interface from javax.transaction package, DataSourceTransactionManager doesn’t use it (maybe because of simplicity, I didn’t dig deep enough in org.springframework.jdbc.datasource), and thus Envers works fine except not pushing the data to the database. Which is the whole point of using Envers. Use right tools for the task, they say. The whole problem is solved by using a transaction manager that is well aware of hibernate underneath. <bean id="transactionManager" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateTransactionManager" > <property name="sessionFactory" ref="sessionFactory"/> </bean> Lesson learned: always make sure your acceptance tests are testing the right thing. If there is a doubt about the value of your tests, you just don’t have enough of them,

I’ve stumbled upon a bug with my configuration for JBoss Envers today, despite having integration tests all over the application. I have to admit, it casted a dark shadow of doubt about the value of all the tests for a moment. I’ve been practicing TDD since 2005, and frankly speaking, I should have been smarter than that.

My fault was simple. I’ve started using Envers the right way, with exploratory tests and a prototype. Then I’ve deleted the prototype and created some integration tests using in-memory H2 that looked more or less like this example:

@Test
public void savingAndUpdatingPersonShouldCreateTwoHistoricalVersions() {
    //given
    Person person = createAndSavePerson();
    String oldFirstName = person.getFirstName();
    String newFirstName = oldFirstName + "NEW";

    //when
    updatePersonWithNewName(person, newFirstName);

    //then
    verifyTwoHistoricalVersionsWereSaved(oldFirstName, newFirstName);
}

private Person createAndSavePerson() {
    Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction();
    Person person = PersonFactory.createPerson();
    session.save(person);
    transaction.commit();
    return person;
}    

private void updatePersonWithNewName(Person person, String newName) {
    Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction();
    person.setFirstName(newName);
    session.update(person);
    transaction.commit();
}

private void verifyTwoHistoricalVersionsWereSaved(String oldFirstName, String newFirstName) {
    List<Object[]> personRevisions = getPersonRevisions();
    assertEquals(2, personRevisions.size());
    assertEquals(oldFirstName, ((Person)personRevisions.get(0)[0]).getFirstName());
    assertEquals(newFirstName, ((Person)personRevisions.get(1)[0]).getFirstName());
}

private List<Object[]> getPersonRevisions() {
    Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction();
    AuditReader auditReader = AuditReaderFactory.get(session);
    List<Object[]> personRevisions = auditReader.createQuery()
            .forRevisionsOfEntity(Person.class, false, true)
            .getResultList();
    transaction.commit();
    return personRevisions;
}

Because Envers inserts audit data when the transaction is commited (in a new temporary session), I thought I have to create and commit the transaction manually. And that is true to some point.

My fault was that I didn’t have an end-to-end integration/acceptance test, that would call to entry point of the application (in this case a service which is called by GWT via RPC), because then I’d notice, that the Spring @Transactional annotation, and calling transaction.commit() are two, very different things.

Spring @Transactional annotation will use a transaction manager configured for the application. Envers on the other hand is used by subscribing a listener to hibernate’s SessionFactory like this:

<bean id="sessionFactory" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.annotation.AnnotationSessionFactoryBean" >        
...
 <property name="eventListeners">
     <map key-type="java.lang.String" value-type="org.hibernate.event.EventListeners">
         <entry key="post-insert" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="post-update" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="post-delete" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="pre-collection-update" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="pre-collection-remove" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="post-collection-recreate" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
     </map>
 </property>
</bean>

<bean id="auditEventListener" class="org.hibernate.envers.event.AuditEventListener" />

Envers creates and collects something called AuditWorkUnits whenever you update/delete/insert audited entities, but audit tables are not populated until something calls AuditProcess.beforeCompletion, which makes sense. If you are using org.hibernate.transaction.JDBCTransaction manually, this is called on commit() when notifying all subscribed javax.transaction.Synchronization objects (and enver’s AuditProcess is one of them).

The problem was, that I used a wrong transaction manager.

<bean id="transactionManager" class="org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.DataSourceTransactionManager" >
    <property name="dataSource" ref="dataSource"/>
</bean>

This transaction manager doesn’t know anything about hibernate and doesn’t use org.hibernate.transaction.JDBCTransaction. While Synchronization is an interface from javax.transaction package, DataSourceTransactionManager doesn’t use it (maybe because of simplicity, I didn’t dig deep enough in org.springframework.jdbc.datasource), and thus Envers works fine except not pushing the data to the database.

Which is the whole point of using Envers.

Use right tools for the task, they say. The whole problem is solved by using a transaction manager that is well aware of hibernate underneath.

<bean id="transactionManager" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateTransactionManager" >
    <property name="sessionFactory" ref="sessionFactory"/>
</bean>

Lesson learned: always make sure your acceptance tests are testing the right thing. If there is a doubt about the value of your tests, you just don’t have enough of them,

Solution Architect @ TouK

— Previous article

NoSQL devmeeting in Warsaw

Next article —

Zabawy zespołowe: ćwiczenie głosu - RYBA!

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Private fields and methods are not private in groovy

I used to code in Java before I met groovy. Like most of you, groovy attracted me with many enhancements. This was to my surprise to discover that method visibility in groovy is handled different than Java!

Consider this example:

class Person {
private String name
public  String surname

private Person() {}

private String signature() { "${name?.substring(0, 1)}. $surname" }

public String toString() { "I am $name $surname" }
}

How is this class interpreted with Java?

  1. Person has private constructor that cannot be accessed
  2. Field "name" is private and cannot be accessed
  3. Method signature() is private and cannot be accessed

Let's see how groovy interpretes Person:

public static void main(String[] args) {
def person = new Person()   // constructor is private - compilation error in Java
println(person.toString())

    person.@name = 'Mike'       // access name field directly - compilation error in Java
println(person.toString())

    person.name = 'John'        // there is a setter generated by groovy
println(person.toString())

    person.@surname = 'Foo'     // access surname field directly
println(person.toString())

    person.surname = 'Bar'      // access auto-generated setter
println(person.toString())

println(person.signature()) // call private method - compilation error in Java
}

I was really astonished by its output:

I am null null
I am Mike null
I am John null
I am John Foo
I am John Bar
J. Bar

As you can see, groovy does not follow visibility directives at all! It treats them as non-existing. Code compiles and executes fine. It's contrary to Java. In Java this code has several errors, pointed out in comments.

I've searched a bit on this topic and it seems that this behaviour is known since version 1.1 and there is a bug report on that: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GROOVY-1875. It is not resolved even with groovy 2 release. As Tim Yates mentioned in this Stackoverflow question: "It's not clear if it is a bug or by design". Groovy treats visibility keywords as a hint for a programmer.

I need to keep that lesson in mind next time I want to make some field or method private!

DDevelopment & Design

4Developers 2010 Review

I've been to 4Developers in 2009 in Cracow, together with Tomasz Przybysz and we had very nice impressions, no wonder then I wanted to signed up for 2010 edition in Poznań as well. Tomasz was sick, but Jakub Kurlenda decided to come with me. This time...I've been to 4Developers in 2009 in Cracow, together with Tomasz Przybysz and we had very nice impressions, no wonder then I wanted to signed up for 2010 edition in Poznań as well. Tomasz was sick, but Jakub Kurlenda decided to come with me. This time...