I have a Visit entity which refers to a Patient entity by ManyToOne relationship. The repository for Visit is:
#RepositoryRestResource(collectionResourceRel = "visits", path = "visits", excerptProjection=VisitProjection.class)
public interface VisitRepository extends PagingAndSortingRepository<Visit, Long> {
#RestResource(path="all")
List<Visit> findByPatientIdContaining(#Param("keyword") String keyword);
}
When searching visits by patient ID with /visits/search/all?keyword=1 which may return millions of records, the query is forever pending and never ends. In the console there are dozens of hibernate sqls printed every second. How can I set the request timeout from server side?
I have tried:
And Transactional annotation with timeout attribute to repository method: (works a little but still takes long to timeout)
#RestResource(path="all")
#Transactional(timeout=2)
List<Visit> findByPatientIdContaining(#Param("keyword") String keyword);
add some timeout properties to application.properties: (just doesn't work at all):
spring.jpa.properties.hibernate.c3p0.timeout=2
spring.jpa.properties.javax.persistence.query.timeout=2
spring.mvc.async.request-timeout=2
server.connection-timeout=2
rest.connection.connection-request-timeout=2
rest.connection.connect-timeout=2
rest.connection.read-timeout=2
server.servlet.session.timeout=2
spring.session.timeout=2
spring.jdbc.template.query-timeout=2
spring.transaction.default-timeout=2
spring.jpa.properties.javax.persistence.query.timeout=2
javax.persistence.query.timeout=2
server.tomcat.connection-timeout=5
Okay, no one using your API is going to want millions of records in one hit so use the provided paging functionality to make the result set more manageable:
https://docs.spring.io/spring-data/rest/docs/3.1.6.RELEASE/reference/html/#paging-and-sorting
#RestResource(path="all")
Page<Visit> findByPatientIdContaining(#Param("keyword") String keyword, Pageable p);
Clients can specify the records they want the records returned by adding the params:
?page=1&size=5
Related
I have the following entities:
Area
Listing
They are both many-to-many:
An area can have many listings
A listing can have many areas
Both Area and Listing have other fields like name, domain, etc.
I'm using Spring Web RestController as a way to update the entities.
For example:
#PutMapping("/{id}")
public Area update(#PathVariable Long id, #RequestBody Area update) {
return areaRepository.save(update);
}
However, as an Area can have many thousands of Listings, it's not practical to pass them all in the update request when I just want to update the Area name and other basic fields in my web application.
For example, the update json in the http request would be:
{
"id" : 69,
"name" : "San Francisco",
"domain" : "foo",
...
}
When serialised, the area instance above will have a listings field equal to null (obviously) and then when saved, all association are remove from this Area.
I'm thinking that I could do a select-then-update set of operations and only update the values necessary but that is cumbersome - especially when there are many dozens of non-association fields.
The question would be: how can I try to keep to the above code and http request and not remove all of the existing Listing associations when saving the input area? Is this possible? I want to update the name and other basic fields but not the association fields.
You can use the BeanUtilBean(org.apache.commons.beanutils.BeanUtilsBean).
Step 1: Create custom beanutilbean class.
#Component
public class CustomBeanUtilsBean extends BeanUtilsBean {
#Override
public void copyProperty(Object dest, String name, Object value)
throws IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException {
if(value==null)return;
super.copyProperty(dest, name, value);
}
}
Step 2: In your controller while updating. first get the Area from database & use copyProperties method as shown in below.
#PutMapping("/{id}")
public Area update(#PathVariable Long id, #RequestBody Area update) {
Area areaDB = areaRepository.findOne(update.getId());
customBeanUtilsBean.copyProperties(areaDB,update);//it will set not null field values of update to areaDB.
return areaRepository.save(areaDB);
}
Hope this will helps you..:)
Since you are using spring-data-jpa repository you can write a new method that takes the changed values of Area object with #Modifying and #Query annotations on it.
In the #Query you specify the HQL query with update statement as in here
OK so let's start self referencing object, something like this:
#Data
#Entity
public class FamilyNode {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private long id;
private boolean orphan;
#ManyToOne
private FamilyNode parent;
}
And a standard repository rest resource like this:
#RepositoryRestResource(collectionResourceRel = "familynodes", path = "familynodes")
public interface FamilyNodeRepository extends CrudRepository<FamilyNode, Long> {
}
Now, let's assume some parent objects which I want to link with already exist with ID=1 and ID=2, each of which were created with a POST to /api/familynodes which looked like this:
{
"orphan": true,
}
If I attempt to create a new client (ID=3) with something like this using a POST request to /api/familynodes, it will work fine with the linked resource updating fine in the DB:
{
"orphan": false,
"parent": "/api/familynodes/1"
}
However, if I attempt to do a PUT with the following body to /api/familynodes/3, the parent property seems to silently do nothing and the database is not updated to reflect the new association:
{
"orphan": false,
"parent": "/api/familynodes/2"
}
Similarly (and this is the use case that I'm getting at), a PUT like this will only update the orphan property but will leave the parent untouched:
{
"orphan": true,
"parent": null
}
So you now have a record which claims to be an orphan, but still has a parent. Of course you could do subsequent REST requests to the resource URI directly but I'm trying to make rest operations atomic so that it's impossible for any single rest query to create invalid state. So now I'm struggling with how do that with what seems like a simple use case without getting into writing my own controller to handle it - am I missing a mechanism here within the realm of spring data rest?
This is the expected behaviour for PUT requests in Spring Data Rest 2.5.7 and above wherein a PUT request does not update the resource links, only the main attributes.
As detailed here by Oliver Gierke:
If we consider URIs for association fields in the payload to update those associations, the question comes up about what's supposed to happen if no URI is specified. With the current behavior, linked associations are simply not a part of the payload as they only reside in the _links block. We have two options in this scenario: wiping the associations that are not handed, which breaks the "PUT what you GET" approach. Only wiping the ones that are supplied using null would sort of blur the "you PUT the entire state of the resource".
You may use a PATCH instead of PUT to achieve the desired result in your case
I have two entities: User and Connection, along with two appropriate repositories. Both entities has #GraphId id field. Connection entity has User user field.
In ConnectionRepository interface I added following method:
List<Connection> findByUserId(long userId)
But it doesn't work. It generates incorrect cypher query. I think it incorrect, because it contains clause like this:
WHERE user.id = 15
which is not working, because id is not a property. It must be:
WHERE id(user) = 15
Is this a bug? In any case, how can I get it to work?
The derived query translates to the property id of the user defined on the Connection. It is quite possible that node entities contain a user managed id property as well and it would be incorrect to assume that id is always the node id.
In this case, you might want to use a #Query instead.
#Query("MATCH (user:label) WHERE ID(user)={0} return user")
List<Connection> findByUserId(long userId)
Every entity class has user.id value, I have filters on all services which filters data by principal.id and entity user.id on database level, simply adds where clause. I started to using #Cacheable spring option. But filters not works with spring-cache. How can I filter data from cache ?
#Override
#Cacheable(value = "countries")
public List<Country> getAll() {
return countryDao.findAll();
}
Different user has access to values other users if values are in cache.
From documentation
"As the name implies, #Cacheable is used to demarcate methods that are cacheable - that is, methods for whom the result is stored into the cache so on subsequent invocations (with the same arguments), the value in the cache is returned without having to actually execute the method."
In your case you don't have arguments therefore every time getAll is invoked it will return the cached version.
If your countryDao.findAll() inject the userid at database level, you have an issue as the first user calling countryDao.findAll() will cause his result to be cached, therefore other users will get the same result of the first user.
In general, if I understood how you designed the service, it is common that you don't inject the user at db level but pass it at service level so that this is decoupled from the current session (for example a web request).
However if you want to keep like that, it could still work by doing:
#Cacheable(value = "countries", key="#user.id")
public List<Country> getAll(User user) {
return countryDao.findAll();
}
All you have to do is pass the user to the method even if you don't use it explicitly (but the caching will).
I want to test if created entity has been correctly persisted to database.There is a service integration test for create method:
#SpringApplicationContext({"setting ...."})
public class PersonServiceIntegrationTest extends UnitilsJUnit4 {
#SpringBeanByName
private PersonService personService;
#Test
public void createPerson() {
String name = "Name";
String sname = "Surename";
DtoPerson item = personService.createPerson(name, sname, Arrays.asList( new DtoAddress("Pisek","CZE", true), new DtoAddress("Strakonice", "CZE", false) );
Assert.notNull("Cannot be null", item);
/*
* This assertion fails because of transaction (I suppose) - item is not in
* database right now.
* Why? Returned dto 'item; is not null?
*/
//domain with all fetched related entities, eg. address
Person p = personService.getPerson(item.getIdPerson());
List<Address> addresses = p.getAddresses();
Assert.notNull("Cannot be null", p);
Assert.notNull("Cannot be null", addresses);//return collection of Address
Assert.notFalse("Cannot be emtpty", addresses.isEmpty());
ReflectionAssert.assertPropertyLeniens("City", Arrays.asList("Pisek", "Strakonice"), addresses);
}
}
Is it necessary to test create entity if I use hibernate? Someone can write you try to test low-level hibernate but hibernate has own tests. There is a trivial code above but I can imagine some specific code which persists more entites at same time (eg. one-many plus several one-one relations). And I want to test if relations has been correctly persisted.
Is there a pattern to do test this way? I have a problem, that record is not at database. I don't want to use returned dto (it presents only agregate root entity - person, but it does not say about person basic data (one-many), person address (one-many) etc.)... i want to get persisted record.
What I do to test the persistence is:
1) I create the Domain entity,
2) save it with Hibernate/JPA,
3) flush and clear the hibernate session/entity manager
4) load the entity again with hibernate
5) compare the original entity with the one that I have (re)loaded
so I am pretty sure that the mapping is more or less correct and every thing get persisted
I decided to rework service method for create person.
PersonService is responsible only to create domain entity Person - test will do only test the returned DtoPerson and its values.
PersonService will inject AddressService, PersonBasicDataService, which they have own create methods with collection as parameter. These services will have own test classes and test only returned collection of DtoAddress or DtoPersonBasicData.
Tests will be simply and will solve only own responsibility. :-)
As #Ralph said in comments under his answer - this test case is not about service layer. There is necessary to test domain layer. And what there is a new idea which I do not use in integration tests - tests has own hibernate session.