The Repeatable Read isolation level only sees data committed before the transaction began.
So, I think it is only meaningful at Method doing repeat select.
But, I see a below code.
#Transactional(isolation = Isolation.REPEATABLE_READ)
#Override
public void buyItem(Credit playerCredit, Long haveToPayCredit) {
if(haveToPayCredit > playerCredit.getFreeCredit()) {
Long remainHaveToPay = haveToPayCredit - playerCredit.getFreeCredit();
playerCredit.updateCredit(playerCredit.getPaidCredit() - remainHaveToPay, 0L);
}
else {
playerCredit.updateCredit(playerCredit.getPaidCredit(), playerCredit.getFreeCredit() - haveToPayCredit);
}
}
This method do only update. So, It look so meaningless to add Transactional annotation.
The REPEATABLE READ isolation level at update method is meaningful?
Related
I have my version column defined like this
#org.springframework.data.annotation.Version
protected long version;
With Spring Data JDBC it's always trying to INSERT. Updates are not happening. When I debug I see that, PersistentEntityIsNewStrategy is being used which is the default strategy. It has isNew() method to determine the state of the entity being persisted. I do see that version and id are used for this determination.
But my question is who is responsible to increment the version column after every save, so that when the second time .save() is called, the isNew() method can return false.
Should we do fire a BeforeSaveEvent and handle the incrementation of Version column? Would that be good enough to handle the OptimisticLock ?
Edit
I added an ApplicationListener to listen to BeforeSaveEvent like this.
public ApplicationListener<BeforeSaveEvent> incrementingVersion() {
return event -> {
Object entity = event.getEntity();
if (BaseDataModel.class.isAssignableFrom(entity.getClass())) {
BaseDataModel baseDataModel = (BaseDataModel) entity;
Long version = baseDataModel.getVersion();
if (version == null) {
baseDataModel.setVersion(0L);
} else {
baseDataModel.setVersion(version + 1L);
}
}
};
}
So now the version column works, but rest of Auditable fields #CreatedAt, #CreatedBy,#LastModifiedDate and #LastModifiedBy are not set!!
Edit2
Created a new ApplicationListener like below. In this case both my custom listener and Spring's RelationalAuditingListener are getting called. But still it doesn't solve the problem. Because the order of listeners[custom one followed by spring's] making the markAudited to invoke markUpdated instead of markCreated, since the version column is already incremented. I tried to make my Listener be the LOWEST_PRECEDENCE still no luck.
My custom listener here
public class CustomRelationalAuditingEventListener
implements ApplicationListener<BeforeSaveEvent>, Ordered {
#Override
public void onApplicationEvent(BeforeSaveEvent event) {
Object entity = event.getEntity();
// handler.markAudited(entity);
if (BaseDataModel.class.isAssignableFrom(entity.getClass())) {
BaseDataModel baseDataModel = (BaseDataModel) entity;
if (baseDataModel.getVersion() == null) {
baseDataModel.setVersion(0L);
} else {
baseDataModel.setVersion(baseDataModel.getVersion() + 1L);
}
}
}
#Override
public int getOrder() {
return LOWEST_PRECEDENCE;
}
}
Currently, you have to increment the version manually and there is no optimistic locking, i.e. the version is only used for checking if an entity is new.
There is an open issue for support of optimistic locking and there is even a PR open for it.
Therefore it is likely that this feature will be available with an upcoming 1.1 milestone.
I have the following method in an #Service class which has #Transactional defined:
#Override
public Result add(#NonNull final UserSaveRequest request) {
final Result<Email> emailResult = Email.create(request.getEmail());
final Result<UserFirstName> userFirstNameResult = UserFirstName.create(request.getFirstName());
final Result<UserLastName> userLastNameResult = UserLastName.create(request.getLastName());
final Result combinedResult = Result.combine(emailResult, userFirstNameResult, userLastNameResult);
if (combinedResult.isFailure()) {
return Result.fail(combinedResult.getErrorMessage());
}
final Result<User> userResult = User.create(emailResult.getValue(), userFirstNameResult.getValue(), userLastNameResult.getValue());
if (userResult.isFailure()) {
return Result.fail(userResult.getErrorMessage());
}
this.userRepository.save(userResult.getValue());
return Result.ok();
}
Now as you can see I utilize a Result class which can contain a return value or an error message as I don't think using exceptions for flow control is very clean.
The problem I now have is; the complete method is bound in one transaction and if one database call should fail the whole transaction will be rolled back. In my model however, after the this.userRepository.save(userResult.getValue()); call, if something would happen that would force me to return a failed result, I can't undo that save(userResult.getVlaue()); call seeing as I don't use exceptions for flow control.
Is this a problem that has an elegant solution, or is this a place where I need to make a trade-off between using exceptions as flow control and having to mentally keep track of the ordering of my statements in these kind of situations?
Yes, you can trigger rollback manually. Try this:
TransactionAspectSupport.currentTransactionStatus().setRollbackOnly();
More information: https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/5.0.7.RELEASE/spring-framework-reference/data-access.html#transaction-declarative-rolling-back
I am trying to analyze what problem i might be having with unsafe threading in my code.
In my mvc3 webapplication i try to the following:
// Caching code
public static class CacheExtensions
{
public static T GetOrStore<T>(this Cache cache, string key, Func<T> generator)
{
var result = cache[key];
if(result == null)
{
result = generator();
lock(sync) {
cache[key] = result;
}
}
return (T)result;
}
}
Using the caching like this:
// Using the cached stuff
public class SectionViewData
{
public IEnumerable<Product> Products {get;set;}
public IEnumerable<SomethingElse> SomethingElse {get;set;}
}
private void Testing()
{
var cachedSection = HttpContext.Current.Cache.GetOrStore("Some Key", 0 => GetSectionViewData());
// Threading problem?
foreach(var product in cachedSection.Products)
{
DosomestuffwithProduct...
}
}
private SectionViewData GetSectionViewData()
{
SectionViewData viewData = new SectionViewData();
viewData.Products = CreateProductList();
viewData.SomethingElse = CreateSomethingElse();
return viewData;
}
Could i run inte problem with the IEnumerable? I dont have much experience with threading problems. The cachedSection would not get touched if some other thread adds a new value to cache right? To me this would work!
Should i cache Products and SomethingElse indivually? Would that be better than caching the whole SectionViewData??
Threading is hard;
In your GetOrStore method, the get/generator sequence is entirely unsynchronized, so any nymber of threads can get null from the cache and run the generator function at the same time. This may - or may not - be a problem.
Your lock statement only locks the setter of cache[string], which is already thread safe and doesn't need to be "extra locked".
The variation of double-checked locking in the cache is suspect, I'd try to get rid of it. Since the thread that never enters the lock() section can get result without a memory barrier, result may not be entirely constructed by the time the thread gets it.
Enumerating the cached IEnumrators is safe as long as nothing modifies them at the same time. If GetSectionViewData() returns an object with immutable (as in non changing) collections, you're safe.
Your code is missing parts like how would Products be populated? Only in GetSectionViewData?
If so, then I don't see a major problem with your code.
There is however a chance that two threads generate the same data(CachedSection) for the same key, it shouldn't create a threading problem except that you are doing the work twice, so if this was an expensive operation I would change the code so it only generates it once per key. If it is not expensive, it works fine as is.
IEnumerable for Products is not touched (assuming you create it separately per thread, but the enumerator on the cache is modified for each insert operation, hence it is not thread safe. So if you are using this I would be careful about that.
I am in reference to Spring Roo In Action (book from Manning). Somewhere in the book it says "Roo marks the test class as #Transactional so that the unit tests automatically roll back any change.
Here is the illustrating method:
#Test
#Transactional
public void addAndFetchCourseViaRepo() {
Course c = new Course();
c.setCourseType(CourseTypeEnum.CONTINUING_EDUCATION);
c.setName("Stand-up Comedy");
c.setDescription(
"You'll laugh, you'll cry, it will become a part of you.");
c.setMaxiumumCapacity(10);
c.persist();
c.flush();
c.clear();
Assert.assertNotNull(c.getId());
Course c2 = Course.findCourse(c.getId());
Assert.assertNotNull(c2);
Assert.assertEquals(c.getName(), c2.getName());
Assert.assertEquals(c2.getDescription(), c.getDescription());
Assert.assertEquals(
c.getMaxiumumCapacity(), c2.getMaxiumumCapacity());
Assert.assertEquals(c.getCourseType(), c2.getCourseType());
}
However, I don't understand why changes in this method would be automatically rolled back if no RuntimeException occurs...
Quote from documentation:
By default, the framework will create and roll back a transaction for each test. You simply write code that can assume the existence of a transaction. [...] In addition, if test methods delete the contents of selected tables while running within a transaction, the transaction will roll back by default, and the database will return to its state prior to execution of the test. Transactional support is provided to your test class via a PlatformTransactionManager bean defined in the test's application context.
So, in other words, SpringJUnit4ClassRunner who runs your tests always do transaction rollback after test execution.
I'm trying to find a method that allows me to do a rollback when one of the elements of a list fails for a reason within the business rules established (ie: when throw my customize exception)
Example, (the idea is not recording anything if one element in list fails)
public class ControlSaveElement {
public void saveRecords(List<MyRecord> listRecords) {
Boolean status = true;
foreach(MyRecord element: listRecords) {
// Here is business rules
if(element.getStatus() == false) {
// something
status = false;
}
element.persist();
}
if(status == false) {
// I need to do roll back from all elements persisted before
}
}
...
}
Any idea? I'm working with Roo 1.2.2..
Boot Pros,
I recently started to program in spring-boot and I stumbled upon a question where I would like to get your opinion on.
What I try to achieve:
I created a Controller that exposes a GET endpoint, named nonBlockingEndpoint. This nonBlockingEndpoint executes a pretty long operation that is resource heavy and can run between 20 and 40 seconds.(in the attached code, it is mocked by a Thread.sleep())
Whenever the nonBlockingEndpoint is called, the spring application should register that call and immediatelly return an Operation ID to the caller.
The caller can then use this ID to query on another endpoint queryOpStatus the status of this operation. At the beginning it will be started, and once the controller is done serving the reuqest it will be to a code such as SERVICE_OK. The caller then knows that his request was successfully completed on the server.
The solution that I found:
I have the following controller (note that it is explicitely not tagged with #Async)
It uses an APIOperationsManager to register that a new operation was started
I use the CompletableFuture java construct to supply the long running code as a new asynch process by using CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {}
I immdiatelly return a response to the caller, telling that the operation is in progress
Once the Async Task has finished, i use cf.thenRun() to update the Operation status via the API Operations Manager
Here is the code:
#GetMapping(path="/nonBlockingEndpoint")
public #ResponseBody ResponseOperation nonBlocking() {
// Register a new operation
APIOperationsManager apiOpsManager = APIOperationsManager.getInstance();
final int operationID = apiOpsManager.registerNewOperation(Constants.OpStatus.PROCESSING);
ResponseOperation response = new ResponseOperation();
response.setMessage("Triggered non-blocking call, use the operation id to check status");
response.setOperationID(operationID);
response.setOpRes(Constants.OpStatus.PROCESSING);
CompletableFuture<Boolean> cf = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try {
// Here we will
Thread.sleep(10000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
// whatever the return value was
return true;
});
cf.thenRun(() ->{
// We are done with the super long process, so update our Operations Manager
APIOperationsManager a = APIOperationsManager.getInstance();
boolean asyncSuccess = false;
try {asyncSuccess = cf.get();}
catch (Exception e) {}
if(true == asyncSuccess) {
a.updateOperationStatus(operationID, Constants.OpStatus.OK);
a.updateOperationMessage(operationID, "success: The long running process has finished and this is your result: SOME RESULT" );
}
else {
a.updateOperationStatus(operationID, Constants.OpStatus.INTERNAL_ERROR);
a.updateOperationMessage(operationID, "error: The long running process has failed.");
}
});
return response;
}
Here is also the APIOperationsManager.java for completness:
public class APIOperationsManager {
private static APIOperationsManager instance = null;
private Vector<Operation> operations;
private int currentOperationId;
private static final Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Application.class);
protected APIOperationsManager() {}
public static APIOperationsManager getInstance() {
if(instance == null) {
synchronized(APIOperationsManager.class) {
if(instance == null) {
instance = new APIOperationsManager();
instance.operations = new Vector<Operation>();
instance.currentOperationId = 1;
}
}
}
return instance;
}
public synchronized int registerNewOperation(OpStatus status) {
cleanOperationsList();
currentOperationId = currentOperationId + 1;
Operation newOperation = new Operation(currentOperationId, status);
operations.add(newOperation);
log.info("Registered new Operation to watch: " + newOperation.toString());
return newOperation.getId();
}
public synchronized Operation getOperation(int id) {
for(Iterator<Operation> iterator = operations.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Operation op = iterator.next();
if(op.getId() == id) {
return op;
}
}
Operation notFound = new Operation(-1, OpStatus.INTERNAL_ERROR);
notFound.setCrated(null);
return notFound;
}
public synchronized void updateOperationStatus (int id, OpStatus newStatus) {
iteration : for(Iterator<Operation> iterator = operations.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Operation op = iterator.next();
if(op.getId() == id) {
op.setStatus(newStatus);
log.info("Updated Operation status: " + op.toString());
break iteration;
}
}
}
public synchronized void updateOperationMessage (int id, String message) {
iteration : for(Iterator<Operation> iterator = operations.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Operation op = iterator.next();
if(op.getId() == id) {
op.setMessage(message);
log.info("Updated Operation status: " + op.toString());
break iteration;
}
}
}
private synchronized void cleanOperationsList() {
Date now = new Date();
for(Iterator<Operation> iterator = operations.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Operation op = iterator.next();
if((now.getTime() - op.getCrated().getTime()) >= Constants.MIN_HOLD_DURATION_OPERATIONS ) {
log.info("Removed operation from watchlist: " + op.toString());
iterator.remove();
}
}
}
}
The questions that I have
Is that concept a valid one that also scales? What could be improved?
Will i run into concurrency issues / race conditions?
Is there a better way to achieve the same in boot spring, but I just didn't find that yet? (maybe with the #Async directive?)
I would be very happy to get your feedback.
Thank you so much,
Peter P
It is a valid pattern to submit a long running task with one request, returning an id that allows the client to ask for the result later.
But there are some things I would suggest to reconsider :
do not use an Integer as id, as it allows an attacker to guess ids and to get the results for those ids. Instead use a random UUID.
if you need to restart your application, all ids and their results will be lost. You should persist them to a database.
Your solution will not work in a cluster with many instances of your application, as each instance would only know its 'own' ids and results. This could also be solved by persisting them to a database or Reddis store.
The way you are using CompletableFuture gives you no control over the number of threads used for the asynchronous operation. It is possible to do this with standard Java, but I would suggest to use Spring to configure the thread pool
Annotating the controller method with #Async is not an option, this does not work no way. Instead put all asynchronous operations into a simple service and annotate this with #Async. This has some advantages :
You can use this service also synchronously, which makes testing a lot easier
You can configure the thread pool with Spring
The /nonBlockingEndpoint should not return the id, but a complete link to the queryOpStatus, including id. The client than can directly use this link without any additional information.
Additionally there are some low level implementation issues which you may also want to change :
Do not use Vector, it synchronizes on every operation. Use a List instead. Iterating over a List is also much easier, you can use for-loops or streams.
If you need to lookup a value, do not iterate over a Vector or List, use a Map instead.
APIOperationsManager is a singleton. That makes no sense in a Spring application. Make it a normal PoJo and create a bean of it, get it autowired into the controller. Spring beans by default are singletons.
You should avoid to do complicated operations in a controller method. Instead move anything into a service (which may be annotated with #Async). This makes testing easier, as you can test this service without a web context
Hope this helps.
Do I need to make database access transactional ?
As long as you write/update only one row, there is no need to make this transactional as this is indeed 'atomic'.
If you write/update many rows at once you should make it transactional to guarantee, that either all rows are updated or none.
However, if two operations (may be from two clients) update the same row, always the last one will win.