| Re: [eclipselink-dev] [External] : Has EclipseLink 5.0.0-B06 passed the Standalone Persistence 3.2 TCK? |
Good to hear that EclipseLink still passes the Standalone 3.2 TCK!How does the EclipseLink team usually deal with Jakarta EE TCK test failures?We are trying to get to zero Jakarta EE 11 (Persistence tests) failures and this is for a failure due to exception thrown from https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink/blob/master/foundation/org.eclipse.persistence.core/src/main/java/org/eclipse/persistence/internal/sessions/UnitOfWorkImpl.java#L3729 It is hard to tell where the bug is that is causing the exception.ScottOn Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:44 AM Radek Felcman <radek.felcman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hello Scott,
I re-verified latest EclipseLink releases against latest Jakarta Persistence TCK tests and everything passing include mentioned
ee.jakarta.tck.persistence.core.entitytest.cascadeall.manyXmany.Client.cascadeAllMXMTest4()
There is review of used environment:
Apache Maven 3.9.9 (8e8579a9e76f7d015ee5ec7bfcdc97d260186937)
Java version: 21.0.6, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Apache Derby Network Server - 10.15.2.0 - (1873585) started and ready to accept connections on port 1527
TCK
Latest main (last commit f49667934d8d3aaa467b8503b503308f8bd1b106) from https://github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck
in
$TCK_PROJECT/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-outside-container/bin/pom.xml jakarta.tck:persistence-tck-runner:3.2.0)
mvn clean install -P staging,full,eclipselink
with following EclipseLink and EclipseLink ASM versions ($TCK_PROJECT/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-outside-container/bin/pom.xml jakarta.tck:persistence-tck-runner:3.2.0)
<!--Available from Maven Central
<eclipselink.asm.version>9.7.1</eclipselink.asm.version>
<eclipselink.version>5.0.0-B06</eclipselink.version>
-->
Available from Maven Central
<eclipselink.asm.version>9.7.1</eclipselink.asm.version>
<eclipselink.version>5.0.0-B07</eclipselink.version>
<!--Build on latest master from https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink (last commit 7dd5c194b294938a08bc145175f612d1854a4a60)
<eclipselink.asm.version>9.8.0</eclipselink.asm.version>
<eclipselink.version>5.0.0-SNAPSHOT</eclipselink.version>
-->
Some maven-failsafe-plugin reports are in the attachment.
About some changes in EclipseLink related with "Cascade Remove" I don't remember any commit which should leads into reported regression.
Thank You
Radek
On 4/30/25 13:59, Radek Felcman via eclipselink-dev wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> thank You for the offer. Currently I'm working on another EclipseLink related task. I believe, that next week I'll start with this issue. In case of troubles I'll ping You.
>
> Thank You
> Radek
>
> On 4/29/25 21:33, Scott Marlow wrote:
>> Hello Radek,
>>
>> EclipseLink CI might start working again soon or maybe not depending on when Eclipse CI recovers. Would it make sense to have a zoom call soon with my screen shared for a remote debug (of EclipseLink) session to step
>> through the test failure together?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> In case it helps I set a breakpoint in UnitOfWorkImpl which is reached at [1] and the call to performRemove(Object toBeDeleted = `B` class instance) that throws the exception is called from
>> cascadePerformRemoveIfRequired(). The `B` class instances have already been removed by previous calls. For reference, I'm debugging the EE TCK test with EclipseLink master branch sources. So we must be trying to
>> cascade the remove to all visitedobjects [2] which includes `A` and `B`.
>>
>> Hope this helps explain the problem we see with the described EE TCK test.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> [1]
>> performRemove:3729, UnitOfWorkImpl (org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions) [2]
>> cascadePerformRemoveIfRequired:478, CollectionMapping (org.eclipse.persistence.mappings)
>> cascadePerformRemove:2631, ObjectBuilder (org.eclipse.persistence.internal.descriptors)
>> performRemove:3745, UnitOfWorkImpl (org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions) [1]
>> remove:677, EntityManagerImpl (org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa)
>> cascadeAllMXMTest4:310, Client (ee.jakarta.tck.persistence.core.entitytest.cascadeall.manyXmany)
>>
>> [2] visitedObjects = {java.util.IdentityHashMap@14148} size = 2
>> {ee.jakarta.tck.persistence.core.entitytest.cascadeall.manyXmany.B@14129} -> {ee.jakarta.tck.persistence.core.entitytest.cascadeall.manyXmany.B@14129}
>> {ee.jakarta.tck.persistence.core.entitytest.cascadeall.manyXmany.A@14147} -> {ee.jakarta.tck.persistence.core.entitytest.cascadeall.manyXmany.A@14147}
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:42 AM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 5:44 AM Radek Felcman <radek.felcman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:radek.felcman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Scott,
>>
>> I'll re-verify it when our Jenkins instance https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ci.eclipse.org/eclipselink/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!N6pS1Wewk_3-m5O-
>> xvhUYXBz_n3tqKLyIOTZk6oW2ofnjdEW2XZtfOfJwLpDuEUykcV33JqaDarUFucJalpsJBTutU16xZ4$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ci.eclipse.org/eclipselink/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Pss8bcedRJCA8-
>> odPPY_BMrkGpPNhFvxo1-QBQtIzVZmkocmw25xbjNdDFZ41MHgynEdJD0VxiV3tgDXpvw$> at Eclipse CI will be available (TCK job is there). It seems, that Eclipse CI https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ci.eclipse.org/__;!!
>> ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!N6pS1Wewk_3-m5O-xvhUYXBz_n3tqKLyIOTZk6oW2ofnjdEW2XZtfOfJwLpDuEUykcV33JqaDarUFucJalpsJBTuvLSCDys$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/
>> __https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ci.eclipse.org/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Pss8bcedRJCA8-odPPY_BMrkGpPNhFvxo1-QBQtIzVZmkocmw25xbjNdDFZ41MHgynEdJD0VxiV3XTkWpIY$__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!N6pS1Wewk_3-m5O-
>> xvhUYXBz_n3tqKLyIOTZk6oW2ofnjdEW2XZtfOfJwLpDuEUykcV33JqaDarUFucJalpsJBTuEf4c2ew$ > has some big outage.
>>
>>
>> Thank you! It may be a while before CI is back.
>>
>> If the TCK test does pass for you, could you please respond with why we hit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink/blob/master/foundation/org.eclipse.persistence.core/src/main/
>> java/org/eclipse/persistence/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!N6pS1Wewk_3-m5O-xvhUYXBz_n3tqKLyIOTZk6oW2ofnjdEW2XZtfOfJwLpDuEUykcV33JqaDarUFucJalpsJBTuGUDZers$ internal/sessions/UnitOfWorkImpl.java#L3729 <https://
>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink/blob/master/foundation/org.eclipse.persistence.core/src/main/java/org/eclipse/persistence/
>> internal/sessions/UnitOfWorkImpl.java*L3729__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Pss8bcedRJCA8-odPPY_BMrkGpPNhFvxo1-QBQtIzVZmkocmw25xbjNdDFZ41MHgynEdJD0VxiV3QFEOib0$> which I think means the "a1" entity was removed from the
>> persistence context as part of the remove of related other entity classes (likely as part of the handling of CascadeType.ALL) but no exception should be thrown I believe but there must be more to it then just
>> that when running the test as part of EE deployment.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> Thank You
>> Radek
>>
>> On 4/24/25 15:49, Scott Marlow via eclipselink-dev wrote:
>> > I am wondering if EclipseLink releases always pass the Persistence TCK before the release? I assume yes but still wanted to know as we are seeing a GlassFish failure running a test that is also in the
>> Standalone
>> > Persistence TCK [1].
>> >
>> > The EE version of the test [2] fails on the call to "getEntityManager().remove(a1)" [3] with exception [4]. In the debugger I evaluated "getEntityManager().contains(a1)" just prior to the failure and see
>> "true". Are
>> > there any later EclipseLink code changes made after the 5.0.0-B06 release that might help with this failure?
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/3e642738584b2e4b9a6a9d80bb12fed6b53afb7e/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-outside-container/spec-tests/src/main/java/ee/
>> jakarta/tck/persistence/core/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!N6pS1Wewk_3-m5O-xvhUYXBz_n3tqKLyIOTZk6oW2ofnjdEW2XZtfOfJwLpDuEUykcV33JqaDarUFucJalpsJBTuhO2-h30$ entitytest/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://
>> github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/3e642738584b2e4b9a6a9d80bb12fed6b53afb7e/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-outside-container/spec-tests/src/main/java/
>> ee/jakarta/tck/persistence/core/entitytest/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Pss8bcedRJCA8-odPPY_BMrkGpPNhFvxo1-QBQtIzVZmkocmw25xbjNdDFZ41MHgynEdJD0VxiV3HWmWwTU$>
>> > cascadeall/manyXmany/Client.java#L283 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/3e642738584b2e4b9a6a9d80bb12fed6b53afb7e/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-outside-
>> container/spec-tests/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/3e642738584b2e4b9a6a9d80bb12fed6b53afb7e/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-outside-container/spec-tests/>
>> > src/main/java/ee/jakarta/tck/persistence/core/entitytest/cascadeall/manyXmany/Client.java*L283__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MQO-WF9LmxKIjXDBKiucXxT3SIKSEX-
>> Eom3pBhkYFlpGQDOPCjbOTv0Nd-3diVxmE9eWNLlL78rpiTEjXyJ_gd04XTyYmV4$>
>> >
>> > [2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/3e642738584b2e4b9a6a9d80bb12fed6b53afb7e/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-inside-container/spec-tests/src/main/java/ee/
>> jakarta/tck/persistence/core/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!N6pS1Wewk_3-m5O-xvhUYXBz_n3tqKLyIOTZk6oW2ofnjdEW2XZtfOfJwLpDuEUykcV33JqaDarUFucJalpsJBTuJAnnWxE$ entitytest/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://
>> github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/3e642738584b2e4b9a6a9d80bb12fed6b53afb7e/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-inside-container/spec-tests/src/main/java/ee/
>> jakarta/tck/persistence/core/entitytest/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Pss8bcedRJCA8-odPPY_BMrkGpPNhFvxo1-QBQtIzVZmkocmw25xbjNdDFZ41MHgynEdJD0VxiV36XVeJkM$>
>> > cascadeall/manyXmany/Client.java#L310 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/3e642738584b2e4b9a6a9d80bb12fed6b53afb7e/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-inside-
>> container/spec-tests/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/jakartaee/platform-tck/blob/3e642738584b2e4b9a6a9d80bb12fed6b53afb7e/tcks/apis/persistence/persistence-inside-container/spec-tests/>
>> > src/main/java/ee/jakarta/tck/persistence/core/entitytest/cascadeall/manyXmany/Client.java*L310__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MQO-WF9LmxKIjXDBKiucXxT3SIKSEX-
>> Eom3pBhkYFlpGQDOPCjbOTv0Nd-3diVxmE9eWNLlL78rpiTEjXyJ_gd04SZtZTkw$>
>> >
>> > [3]
>> >
>> > public void cascadeAllMXMTest4()throws Exception {
>> >
>> > logTrace("Begin cascadeAllMXMTest4");
>> > boolean pass =false;
>> > A a1;
>> > Collection newCol;
>> > try {
>> > final B b1 =new B("1","b1",5);
>> > final B b2 =new B("2","b2",5);
>> > final B b3 =new B("3","b3",5);
>> > final B b4 =new B("4","b4",5);
>> > Vector v1 =new Vector();
>> > v1.add(b1);
>> > v1.add(b2);
>> > v1.add(b3);
>> > v1.add(b4);
>> >
>> > getEntityTransaction().begin();
>> > logTrace("New A instance");
>> > a1 =new A("5","bean5",5,v1);
>> > getEntityManager().persist(a1);
>> >
>> > newCol =a1.getBCol();
>> >
>> > dumpCollectionDataB(newCol);
>> >
>> > if (newCol.contains(b1) &&newCol.contains(b2) &&newCol.contains(b3) &&newCol.contains(b4)) {
>> > try {
>> > logTrace("Remove instances");
>> > getEntityManager().remove(findB("1"));
>> > getEntityManager().remove(findB("2"));
>> > getEntityManager().remove(findB("3"));
>> > getEntityManager().remove(findB("4"));
>> > getEntityManager().remove(a1);
>> > if ((!getEntityManager().contains(a1))) {
>> > pass =true;
>> > }
>> >
>> > getEntityTransaction().commit();
>> > }catch (Exception fe) {
>> > logErr("Unexpected exception caught trying to remove entity instance :",
>> > fe);
>> > }
>> > }else {
>> > logErr("Test failed");
>> > pass =false;
>> > }
>> >
>> > }catch (Exception e) {
>> > logErr("Unexpected exception occurred",e);
>> > }
>> >
>> > if (!pass) {
>> > throw new Exception("cascadeAllMXMTest4 failed");
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > [4] java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Entity must be managed to call remove: ee.jakarta.tck.persistence.core.entitytest.cascadeall.manyXmany.B@3e7a7f36, try merging the detached and try the remove again.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > eclipselink-dev mailing list
>> > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MQO-WF9LmxKIjXDBKiucXxT3SIKSEX-
>> Eom3pBhkYFlpGQDOPCjbOTv0Nd-3diVxmE9eWNLlL78rpiTEjXyJ_gd04GWUGdEY$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MQO-WF9LmxKIjXDBKiucXxT3SIKSEX-
>> Eom3pBhkYFlpGQDOPCjbOTv0Nd-3diVxmE9eWNLlL78rpiTEjXyJ_gd04GWUGdEY$>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-dev mailing list
> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!N6pS1Wewk_3-m5O-
> xvhUYXBz_n3tqKLyIOTZk6oW2ofnjdEW2XZtfOfJwLpDuEUykcV33JqaDarUFucJalpsJBTucsjHNKE$