Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipselink-dev] questions while running JPA JUnit tests

Hi Dies,

I am currently running tests on your patch. Let me know when you have the updates for pagination.

For your issue with Sequence, remind me what changes you have made? The initial places I would suggest to look for references are:


- note both SequencingConfig and ObjectPersistenceRuntimeXMLProject deal with defaults, so they are candidates for why you are seeing the issue

For the locking issue, if your only issues in the Core SRG is in the AutoTableGeneratorBasicTestModel, I think we can consider those tests to be passing, lets not worry about those for now.

In the JPA tests, I think we will have to identify an initial set of tests as our target and then do some work on the test suites to ensure that they do not depend as heavily on DDL functions.

Lets start by looking at org.eclipse.persistence.testing.tests.jpa.advanced.EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite

How is the behavior on that test suite? Do you see failures? Where do they start?

I think that if we can make ensure that all tests leave tables in the same state they started, we can make the majority of tests pass.

Note: we also have some issues with Delete all and update all queries that may cause issues because of the DDL generation issue as well, so we should keep our eye on those.


On a side note, I have started a discussion about how we can lower the barrier required to include new database platforms in the shipped version of EclipseLink with some of the other commiters. Watch the dev mailing list for an initial proposal in the next week or so.


Dies Koper wrote:
Wow!! First time a live response! :))
You must be at the office late :)

Thanks. Yes, if you have some suggestions about the other two issues that should really help me forward.


On 16/12/2009 08:27, Tom Ware wrote:
Hi Dies,

In general, the other changes look good. I am hoping to run some testing
tomorrow and also to take a look at some of the other questions from
your email.


Dies Koper wrote:
Hi James, Tom,

Yes, I was wondering about that.
Okay, I'll drop the custom pagination support.

Tom, have you been able to review/commit the other changes in the patch?


On 16/12/2009 02:42, James Sutherland wrote:
Just an FYI Dies,

I'm not sure the behavior on Symfoware, but on most databases the
benefit in putting limit/offset in the SQL is for the offset, not the
For the limit EclipseLink uses the JDBC maxRows API by default, which
seems to have equivalent or better performance on most databases I
have tested.
If Symfoware does not support the offset, there may be little point
adding the custom pagination support.

----- Original Message -----
From: tom.ware@xxxxxxxxxx
To: eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:32:18 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
Subject: Re: [eclipselink-dev] questions while running JPA JUnit tests

Hi Dies,

To check this in, the setting will have to be completely split. i.e.
the methods that affect both settings
(setIgnoreFirstResultsMaxRowsSettings and
shouldIgnoreFirstResultsMaxRowsSettings). Instead, have separate
getters and
setters for each setting, and make the appropriate changes to classes
on those methods.


Dies Koper wrote:
Hi Tom,

I have started looking at your patch. I have a quick question:

- In DatabaseAccessor, what is the goal of splitting the
ignoreFirstRowSettings and the ignoreMaxResultsSettings

Symfoware supports LIMIT, but has no equivalent for OFFSET.

Currently, the flag setIgnoreFirstRowMaxResultsSettings toggles
both, so
either both JDBC absolute and setMaxRows are called, or both are not.

To support pagination using SQL I override printSQLSelectStatement like
the other platforms do, but as I only have a LIMIT in the query I need
EclipseLink to only call the JDBC absolute method when FirstRow is set.

So my implementation method looks like:

public void printSQLSelectStatement(DatabaseCall call,
ExpressionSQLPrinter printer, SQLSelectStatement statement) {
int max = 0;
int firstRow = 0;

if (statement.getQuery() != null) {
max = statement.getQuery().getMaxRows();
firstRow = statement.getQuery().getFirstResult();

// only MaxRows can be worked into the statement
if (max> 0&& this.shouldUseRownumFiltering()) {
printer.printString(" WITH OPTION LIMIT (");

} else {
// use JDBC absolute and setMaxRows methods for pagination
super.printSQLSelectStatement(call, printer, statement);


Dies Koper wrote:
Hi Tom, all

Congrats on the 2.0 release!

I've been continuing running the test sets on the Symfoware platform.
May I ask you for you help with the following three issues?

1. Review of patch

I've added a patch with changes required for a number of tests to
run. Could you review them, and if okay, commit them?

2. Where is table name "SEQUENCE" defined?

I tried renaming all occurrences of the word "SEQUENCE" in the code I
could find but still some tests try to create a sequence table with
table name SEQUENCE.
It starts with the 8th test in the JPA test set:

which tries a UPDATE SEQUENCE (...).

In the log I see even more:

[junit] [EL Config]:
ServerSession(1006920425)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--The table
generator name defined within [class
org.eclipse.persistence.testing.models.jpa.inherited.Alpine] is being
defaulted to: SEQUENCE.


[junit] [EL Fine]:

[junit] java.sql.SQLException: [SymfoWARE ODBC Driver][SymfoWARE
[junit] at

I believe these might be from the CONCURRENCYA, B and C tables, or
ConcurrencyA, B and C entities. Each of them has
fieldID.setIsIdentity(true) resp. @GeneratedValue specified but the
details of the sequence generators are omitted.

I though it would default to what the platform's
createPlatformDefaultSequence() method returns but apparently not.

Many tests fail because of this issue.

3. Table locks during DROP TABLE

In the SymfowarePlatform wiki page you suggested that we should start
by trying to get the Core SRG running first. Most are passing now.

Only a few (the ReadAllTest tests, which rely on failed I think because of the
table lock issue.

The error message is:

Exception Description: 24 objects were read from the database, but
originially there were, 12.

When I run it by itself through the test browser it passes without

Some messages in the finest log let me believe this is because a
occurred while recreating the tables: they should have been
dropped and
recreated, thereby clearing those old 12 object, but because of the
locking issue they were not.

[junit] Internal Exception: java.sql.SQLException: [SymfoWARE ODBC
Driver][SymfoWARE Server] JYP3913E : Table "PHONE" being used
exclusively by another user.
[junit] Error Code: -3913
[junit] Call: drop table PHONE
[junit] Query: DataModifyQuery(sql="drop table PHONE")
[junit] at

[junit] at

[junit] at

This table was created and accessed as follows:

1. drop (index) and table (outside transaction)

2. create table (and index) (in transaction), same connection

3. insert 30 rows (in single transaction), same connection
?, ?)
[junit] bind => [Home, 613, 5551234, 105]

4. drop (index) and table (outside transaction), different connection
-> SQLException saying PHONE is locked.

I can reproduce this in a simple JDBC application. If I close the
connection used in steps 1-3 before step 4 it works fine.

I can see some session swapping is done in
AutoTableGeneratorBasicTestModel#addForcedRequiredSystems() so I
tried adding a reset() invocation at the start of its
addForcedRequiredSystems() method but that did not help.
How can I make it close the physical connection?
(You mentioned adding logic into TestSystem?)

The lock issue occurs much more often in the JPA test set. The first
failing test however is because of the reserved SEQUENCE keyword used
as table name, so if you could help me in the right direction with
the above three issues I can try move forward with this test set


Tom Ware wrote:
Hi Dies,

FYI: I am working on integrating your initial patch. There are a
couple of items I will not be integrating at the moment:

1. Specific references to SymfowarePlatform and
isSymfowarePlatform(). These will be left until SymfowarePlatform
becomes part of the full product

2. Changes to default SEQUENCE table name to "\"SEQUENCE\"" for our
Sessions and project XML (in XMLSessionConfigProject,
ObjectPersistenceRuntimeXMLProject and SequencingConfig). This is
simply to big a backward compatibility risk since I cannot test
these changes on every database platform that EclipseLink is run on
by our customers. I am looking for some way of having this
information stored on the DatabasePlatform, but at the moment, it is
not looking good. Assuming I do not find a good solution, Symfoware
users will simply have to explicitly set these items when using our
proprietary configuration code (sessions.xml and deployment.xml) We
will also have to address anywhere in the tests we choose to run
where this is an issue.

I am in the process of running testing on the other changes and I'll
let you know when it gets checked in.


Dies Koper wrote:
Hi Tom,

I have added the outstanding issues with SQL keywords in
table/columns names, and maximum precision. The biggest open issue
is of course the drop table restriction. I'm looking forward to
hearing what solution(s) you can come up with.


Tom Ware wrote:
Hi Dies,

I am moving some of the main points of this discussion to the
wiki page so I can more easily keep track of where we are:

I started by just adding some basics about the main issues that
are getting in the way at the moment. I plan to add more detail
next week. Please feel free to add other issues I have missed, or
more detail.

As for some of the other things you were wondering about:

1. Your initial patch (including sequencing fixes etc.). I hope
to find some time to start integrating it next week

2. EclipseLink bug 286907 (not related to Symfoware platform)-
this bug is in the queue and will be addressed in sequence with
the other bugs. The fact that you have submitted a patch means it
will potentially jump other bugs in the queue. At the moment I am
going to focus on the Symfoware Platform issues with my free time,
so I can't make any promises about when it will be included.

3. GlassFish bug 9179 (not related to Symfoware platform) - same
thing as above, but additionally: we cannot legally make use of
the submitted patch until it is attached to EclipseLink bug by
someone with IP rights

I'll get started looking for some solutions next week.

eclipselink-dev mailing list

Back to the top