Behaviour of Hibernate merge() when #Transactional method throws an exception - spring

I would like to ask the reasoning of this behaviour as it seems I do not fully understand the differences between persist() and merge() in Hibernate when running into Spring #Transactional methods/classes.
I have the following code which is supposed to rollback the DB operation but it doesn't (the whole class is annotated as #Transactional):
#Override
public MyBean assignNewFoo(Integer id, Integer idNewFoo) {
MyBean bean = myBeanRepository.findOne(id);
bean = myBeanRepository.save(bean);
bean.setNewFoo(
fooManagement.findById(idNewFoo)
);
if (true) throw new RuntimeException();
return bean;
}
The following code does rollback as expected when an exception is thrown:
#Override
public MyBean assignNewFoo(Integer id, Integer idNewFoo) {
MyBean bean = myBeanRepository.findOne(id);
myBeanRepository.save(bean);
bean.setNewFoo(
fooManagement.findById(idNewFoo)
);
if (true) throw new RuntimeException();
return bean;
}
The save() method comes from the class org.springframework.data.jpa.repository.support.SimpleJpaRepository, so its code is:
#Transactional
public <S extends T> S save(S entity) {
if (entityInformation.isNew(entity)) {
em.persist(entity);
return entity;
} else {
return em.merge(entity);
}
}
The entity is an existing one, so I understand it's doing a merge(). As per JPA specification:
The find method (provided it is invoked without a lock or invoked with
LockModeType.NONE) and the getReference method are not required to be
invoked within a transaction context. If an entity manager with
transaction-scoped persistence context is in use, the resulting
entities will be detached; if an entity manager with an extended
persistence context is used, they will be managed.
The merge operation allows for the propagation of state from detached
entities onto persistent entities managed by the entity manager. The
semantics of the merge operation applied to an entity X are as
follows:
If X is a detached entity, the state of X is copied onto a pre-existing managed entity instance X' of the same identity or a new
managed copy X' of X is created.
If X is a new entity instance, a new managed entity instance X' is created and the state of X is copied into the new managed entity
instance X'.
If X is a removed entity instance, an IllegalArgumentException will be thrown by the merge operation (or the transaction commit will
fail).
If X is a managed entity, it is ignored by the merge operation, however, the merge operation is cascaded to entities referenced by
relationships from X if these relationships have been annotated with
the cascade element value cascade=MERGE or cascade=ALL annotation.
For all entities Y referenced by relationships from X having the cascade element value cascade=MERGE or cascade=ALL, Y is merged
recursively as Y'. For all such Y referenced by X, X' is set to
reference Y'. (Note that if X is managed then X is the same object as
X'.)
If X is an entity merged to X', with a reference to another entity Y, where cascade=MERGE or cascade=ALL is not specified, then
navigation of the same association from X' yields a reference to a
managed object Y' with the same persistent identity as Y.
If the returned copy by merge() is supposedly the managed entity, why are changes stored in the DB when I use the detached one? (unless there is an exception. This is the behaviour I want)
Why changes are committed anyway if I modify the new managed entity but an exception is thrown?
EDIT As requested by #alan-hay:
package org.customer.somefoos.service.impl;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Date;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.LinkedHashSet;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Set;
import javax.annotation.Resource;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Service;
import org.springframework.transaction.annotation.Transactional;
import org.customer.somefoos.entity.MyBean;
import org.customer.somefoos.repository.MyBeanRepository;
import org.customer.somefoos.service.MyBeanManagement;
import org.customer.somefoos.service.FooManagement;
#Service
#Transactional
public class MyBeanManagementImpl implements MyBeanManagement {
#Resource
private MyBeanRepository myBeanRepository;
#Resource
private FooManagement fooManagement;
#Override
public List<MyBean> findAll() {
return myBeanRepository.findAll();
}
#Override
public MyBean findById(Integer id) {
return myBeanRepository.findOne(id);
}
#Override
public void delete(Integer id) {
myBeanRepository.delete(id);
}
#Override
public MyBean save(MyBean myBean) {
return myBeanRepository.save(myBean);
}
#Override
public MyBean assignNewFoo(Integer id, Integer idNewFoo) {
MyBean bean = myBeanRepository.findOne(id);
myBeanRepository.save(bean);
bean.setNewFoo(
fooManagement.findById(idNewFoo)
);
if (true) throw new RuntimeException();
return bean;
}
}

It seems that you misunderstand merge semantics and container-managed transactions behaviour. Your assignNewFoo method is transactional and your 'bean' instance is loaded from the repository. Because of this, 'bean' instance keeps being managed until transaction ends (or until you remove in from a persistence context manually). This means that myBeanRepository.save(bean); call does nothing as 'bean' is already a JPA-managed entity. myBeanRepository.save(bean) == bean will be true as long as saving is performed in same transaction 'findOne' has been issued in. Merge is used to apply changes made to a non-managed instance of an entity to a managed one. This code illustrates the case merge is being used for:
MyBean bean = repo.findOne(id);
MyBean anotherInstance = new MyBean();
anotherInstance.setId(id);
anotherInstance.setNewFoo("100");
MyBean managed = repo.save(anotherInstance);
// And now we take a look:
managed == bean; // => true
anotherInstance == managed; // => false
bean.getNewFoo(); // => "100"
// An anotherInstance is still detached while save() call has
// returned us a managed instance ('bean')
As per JPA Spec entry you reference to: it's inapplicable here. It says about non-transactional searches, but your search is performed within transaction started by assignNewFoo invocation.
From all the stuff written above: two of your code samples provided to demonstrate no-rollback behaviour are, in fact, identical. There are some reasons you may face the issue you complain about:
You're calling assignNewFoo from a #Transactional method and you peform transaction application checks in this outer #Transactional method. Since your propagation level is 'REQUIRED' and RuntimeException is not caught inside assignNewFoo invocation, the transaction will be marked for rollback once assignNewFoo invocation is finished, but actual rollback will be performed upon completion of method your transaction has been propagated from.
If you're 100 % sure you've done everything right, this might be a Spring/Provider/DBMS issue. I was unable to reproduce this bug on latest Spring Boot + Hibernate 4 + HSQLDB, it may worth checking if you're out of options.

Related

Without JPA #Transaction and save() when is the commit done?

When a method has a #Transaction annatotion, I know the commit is done at the end of the method. But when I don't use #Transaction, it's not clear to me when the commit is done. In my example I don't use #Transaction, do the real change in another service and don't use someRepository .save(), but it still works:
#Service
public class ServiceA {
private final SomeRepository someRepository;
private final ServiceB serviceB;
public ServiceA(SomeRepository someRepository, ) {
this.someRepository = someRepository;
this.serviceB = serviceB;
}
// Called from controller
public void doStuff() {
var someEntity = someRepository.findById(1);
serviceB.makeChange(someEntity);
}
}
#Service
public class ServiceB {
public ServiceB() {}
public void makeChange(SomeEntity someEntity) {
someEntity.setName("Test"); // this is working and committed to the database
}
}
So actually I have 2 questions:
When I don't add a #Transaction annatotion to a method when is the commit done?
I don't even have to call someRepository.save(entity)? I thought that worked only when using the #Transaction annotation?
Context:
Spring Boot 2.2.6
"spring-boot-starter-data-jpa" as dependency
first one clarification: the #Transactional annotation does not mean there is a commit at end of the method. It means the method joins the transaction (or start a new one - this depends on the propagation attributes to be precise), so the commit (or rollback) will be performed at the end of the transaction, which can (and often does) involve multiple methods with various DB access.
Normally Spring (or another transaction manager) takes care of this (ie disabling auto-commit).
#Transactional missing
There is no transactional context so the commit is performed immediately as the database in modified. There is no rollback option and, if there is an error, the data integrity might be violated,
#Transactional defined
During the transactions the JPA entities are in managed-state, at the end of the transaction the state is automatically flushed to the DB (no need to call someRepository.save(entity)

JPA - Spanning a transaction over multiple JpaRepository method calls

I'm using SpringBoot 2.x with SpringData-JPA accessing the database via a CrudRepository.
Basically, I would like to call the CrudRepository's methods to update or persist the data. In one use case, I would like to delete older entries from the database (for the brevity of this example assume: delete all entries from the table) before I insert a new element.
In case persisting the new element fails for any reason, the delete operation shall be rolled back.
However, the main problem seems to be that new transactions are opened for every method called from the CrudRepository. Even though, a transaction was opened by the method from the calling service. I couldn't get the repository methods to use the existing transaction.
Getting transaction for [org.example.jpatrans.ChairUpdaterService.updateChairs]
Getting transaction for [org.springframework.data.jpa.repository.support.SimpleJpaRepository.deleteWithinGivenTransaction]
Completing transaction for [org.springframework.data.jpa.repository.support.SimpleJpaRepository.deleteWithinGivenTransaction]
I've tried using different Propagation. (REQUIRED, SUPPORTED, MANDATORY) on different methods (service/repository) to no avail.
Changing the methods #Transactional annoation to #Transactional(propagation = Propagation.NESTED) sounded that this would just do that, but didn't help.
JpaDialect does not support savepoints - check your JPA provider's capabilities
Can I achieve the expected behaviour, not using an EntityManager directly?
I also would like to avoid to having to be using native queries as well.
Is there anything I have overlooked?
For demonstration purposes, I've created a very condensed example.
The complete example can be found at https://gitlab.com/cyc1ingsir/stackoverlow_jpa_transactions
Here are the main (even more simplified) details:
First I've got a very simple entity defined:
#Entity
#Table(name = "chair")
#Data
#AllArgsConstructor
#NoArgsConstructor
public class Chair {
// Not auto generating the id is on purpose
// for later testing with non unique keys
#Id
private int id;
#Column(name = "legs", nullable = false)
private Integer legs;
}
The connection to the database is made via the CrudRepository:
#Repository
public interface ChairRepository extends CrudRepository<Chair, Integer> {
}
This is being called from another bean (main methods here are updateChairs and doUpdate):
#Slf4j
#Service
#AllArgsConstructor
#Transactional
public class ChairUpdater {
ChairRepository repository;
/*
* Initialize the data store with some
* sample data
*/
public void initializeChairs() {
repository.deleteAll();
Chair chair4 = new Chair(1, 4);
Chair chair3 = new Chair(2, 3);
repository.save(chair4);
repository.save(chair3);
}
public void addChair(int id, Integer legCount) {
repository.save(new Chair(id, legCount));
}
/*
* Expected behaviour:
* when saving a given chair fails ->
* deleting all other is rolled back
*/
#Transactional
public void updateChairs(int id, Integer legCount) {
Chair chair = new Chair(id, legCount);
repository.deleteAll();
repository.save(chair);
}
}
The goal, I want to achieve is demonstrated by these two test cases:
#Slf4j
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#DataJpaTest
#Import(ChairUpdater.class)
public class ChairUpdaterTest {
private static final int COUNT_AFTER_ROLLBACK = 3;
#Autowired
private ChairUpdater updater;
#Autowired
private ChairRepository repository;
#Before
public void setup() {
updater.initializeChairs();
}
#Test
public void positiveTest() throws UpdatingException {
updater.updateChairs(3, 10);
}
#Test
public void testRollingBack() {
// Trying to update with an invalid element
// to force rollback
try {
updater.updateChairs(3, null);
} catch (Exception e) {
LOGGER.info("Rolled back?", e);
}
// Adding a valid element after the rollback
// should succeed
updater.addChair(4, 10);
assertEquals(COUNT_AFTER_ROLLBACK, repository.findAll().spliterator().getExactSizeIfKnown());
}
}
Update:
It seems to work, if the repository is not extended from either CrudRepository or JpaRepository but from a plain Repository, definening all needed methods explicitly. For me, that seems to be a workaround rather than beeing a propper solution.
The question it boils down to seems to be: Is it possible to prevent SimpleJpaRepository from opening new transactions for every (predefined) method used from the repository interface? Or, if that is not possible, how to "force" the transaction manager to reuse the transaction, opened in the service to make a complete rollback possible?
Hi I found this documentation that looks will help you:
https://www.logicbig.com/tutorials/spring-framework/spring-data/transactions.html
Next an example take from the previous web site:
#Configuration
**#ComponentScan
#EnableTransactionManagement**
public class AppConfig {
....
}
Then we can use transactions like this:
#Service
public class MyExampleBean{
**#Transactional**
public void saveChanges() {
**repo.save(..);
repo.deleteById(..);**
.....
}
}
Yes this is possible. First alter the #Transactional annotation so that it includes rollBackFor = Exception.class.
/*
* Expected behaviour:
* when saving a given chair fails ->
* deleting all other is rolled back
*/
#Transactional(rollbackFor = Exception.class)
public void updateChairs(int id, Integer legCount) {
Chair chair = new Chair(id, legCount);
repository.deleteAll();
repository.save(chair);
}
This will cause the transaction to roll back for any exception and not just RuntimeException or Error.
Next you must add enableDefaultTransactions = false to #EnableJpaRepositories and put the annotation on one of your configuration classes if you hadn't already done so.
#Configuration
#EnableJpaRepositories(enableDefaultTransactions = false)
public class MyConfig{
}
This will cause all inherited jpa methods to stop creating a transaction by default whenever they're called. If you want custom jpa methods that you've defined yourself to also use the transaction of the calling service method, then you must make sure that you didn't annotate any of these custom methods with #Transactional. Because that would prompt them to start their own transactions as well.
Once you've done this all of the repository methods should be executed using the service method transaction only. You can test this by creating and using a custom update method that is annotated with #Modifying. For more on testing please see my answer in this SO thread. Spring opens a new transaction for each JpaRepository method that is called within an #Transactional annotated method

Why does OpenEntityManagerInViewFilter change #Transactional propagation REQUIRES_NEW behavior?

Using Spring 4.3.12, Spring Data JPA 1.11.8 and Hibernate 5.2.12.
We use the OpenEntityManagerInViewFilter to ensure our entity relationships do not throw LazyInitializationException after an entity has been loaded. Often in our controllers we use a #ModelAttribute annotated method to load an entity by id and make that loaded entity available to a controller's request mapping handler method.
In some cases like auditing we have entity modifications that we want to commit even when some other transaction may error and rollback. Therefore we annotate our audit work with #Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW) to ensure this transaction will commit successfully regardless of any other (if any) transactions which may or may not complete successfully.
What I've seen in practice using the OpenEntityManagerInviewFilter, is that when Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW transactions attempt to commit changes which occurred outside the scope of the new transaction causing work which should always result in successful commits to the database to instead rollback.
Example
Given this Spring Data JPA powered repository (the EmployeeRepository is similarly defined):
import org.springframework.data.jpa.repository.JpaRepository;
public interface MethodAuditRepository extends JpaRepository<MethodAudit,Long> {
}
This service:
#Service
public class MethodAuditorImpl implements MethodAuditor {
private final MethodAuditRepository methodAuditRepository;
public MethodAuditorImpl(MethodAuditRepository methodAuditRepository) {
this.methodAuditRepository = methodAuditRepository;
}
#Override #Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW)
public void auditMethod(String methodName) {
MethodAudit audit = new MethodAudit();
audit.setMethodName(methodName);
audit.setInvocationTime(LocalDateTime.now());
methodAuditRepository.save(audit);
}
}
And this controller:
#Controller
public class StackOverflowQuestionController {
private final EmployeeRepository employeeRepository;
private final MethodAuditor methodAuditor;
public StackOverflowQuestionController(EmployeeRepository employeeRepository, MethodAuditor methodAuditor) {
this.employeeRepository = employeeRepository;
this.methodAuditor = methodAuditor;
}
#ModelAttribute
public Employee loadEmployee(#RequestParam Long id) {
return employeeRepository.findOne(id);
}
#GetMapping("/updateEmployee")
// #Transactional // <-- When uncommented, transactions work as expected (using OpenEntityManagerInViewFilter or not)
public String updateEmployee(#ModelAttribute Employee employee, RedirectAttributes ra) {
// method auditor performs work in new transaction
methodAuditor.auditMethod("updateEmployee"); // <-- at close of this method, employee update occurrs trigging rollback
// No code after this point executes
System.out.println(employee.getPin());
employeeRepository.save(employee);
return "redirect:/";
}
}
When the updateEmployee method is exercised with an invalid pin number updateEmployee?id=1&pin=12345 (pin number is limited in the database to 4 characters), then no audit is inserted into the database.
Why is this? Shouldn't the current transaction be suspended when the MethodAuditor is invoked? Why is the modified employee flushing when this Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW transaction commits?
If I wrap the updateEmployee method in a transaction by annotating it as #Transactional, however, audits will persist as desired. And this will work as expected whether or not the OpenEntityManagerInViewFilter is used.
While your application (server) tries to make two separate transactions you are still using a single EntityManager and single Datasource so at any given time JPA and the database see just one transaction. So if you want those things to be separated you need to setup two Datasources and two EntityManagers

JPA: Nested transactional method is not rolled back

UPD 1: Upon further research I think the following information may be useful:
I obtain datasource through JNDI lookup on WildFly 9.0.2, then 'wrap' it into in instance of HikariDataSource (e. g. return new HikariDataSource(jndiDSLookup(dsName))).
the transaction manager that ends up being used is JTATransactionManager.
I do not configure the transaction manager in any way.
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
I am experiencing an issue with JPA/Hibernate and (maybe) Spring-Boot where DB changes introduced in a transactional method of one class called from a transactional method of another class are committed even though the changes in the caller method are rolled back (as they should be).
Here are my transactional services
StuffService:
#Service
#Transactional(rollbackFor = IOException.class)
public class StuffService {
#Inject private BarService barService;
#Inject private StuffRepository stuffRepository;
public Stuff updateStuff(Stuff stuff) {
try {
if (null != barService.doBar(stuff)) {
stuff.setSomething(SOMETHING);
stuff.setSomethingElse(SOMETHING_ELSE);
return stuffRepository.save(stuff);
}
} catch (FirstCustomException e) {
logger.error("Blah", e);
throw new SecondCustomException(e.getMessage());
}
throw new SecondCustomException("Blah 2");
}
// other methods
}
and BarService:
#Service
#Transactional
public class BarService {
#Inject private EntityARepository entityARepository;
#Inject private EntityBRepository entityBRepository;
/*
* updates existing entity A and persists new entity B.
*/
public EntityA doBar(Stuff stuff) throws FirstCustomException {
EntityA a = entityARepository.findOne(/* some criteria */);
a.setSomething(SOMETHING);
EntityB b = new EntityB();
b.setSomething(SOMETHING);
b.setSomethingElse(SOMETHING_ELSE);
entityBRepository.save(b);
return entityARepository.save(a);
}
// other methods
}
EntityARepository and EntityBRepository are very similar Spring-Boot repositories defined like this:
public interface EntityARepository extends JpaRepository<EntityA, Long>{
EntityA findOne(/* some criteria */);
}
FirstCustomException extends Throwable
SecondCustomException extends RuntimeException
Stuff entity is versioned, and every once in a while it is concurrently updated by StuffService.updateStuff(). In that case changes to one of the stuff instances are rolled back, as expected, but everything that happens in the barService.doBar() ends up being committed.
This puzzles me quite a lot since transaction propagation on both methods should be REQUIRED (the default one) and both methods belong to different classes, hence #Transactional should apply for both.
I did see Transaction is not completely rolled back after server throws OptimisticLockException1
But it did not really answer my question.
Can anyone please give me an idea of what's going on?
Thank you.
This isn't a 'nested' transaction - these services are operating in completely independent transactions. If you want the rollback of one to affect the other, you need to have them take part in the same transaction rather than start its own.
Or if your issue is that there is a problem with the version of 'stuff' passed into the doBar method and you want it verified, you will need to do something with the stuff instance that would cause an optimistic lock check, and so result in an exception if it is stale. see EntityManager.lock

Spring Data Rest and collections with unique constraints

I'm evaluating spring-data-rest and am running into a situation where the magic no longer appears to be working in my favor.
Say I have a collection of items.
Parent - 1:M - Child
Parent
Long id
String foo
String bar
#OneToMany(...)
#JoinColumn(name = "parent_id", referencedColumnName = "id", nullable = false)
Collection<Child> items
setItems(items) {
this.items.clear();
this.items.addAll(items);
}
#Table(name = "items", uniqueConstraints = {#UniqueConstraint(columnNames = {"parent_id", "ordinal"})})
Child
Long id
String foo
Integer ordinal
The database has a constraint that children of the same parent can't have conflicting values in one particular field, 'ordinal'.
I want to PATCH to the parent entity, overwriting the collection of children. The problem comes with the default behavior of hibernate. Hibernate doesn't flush the changes from when the collection is cleared until after the new items are added. This violates the constraint, even though the eventual state will not.
Cannot insert duplicate key row in object 'schema.parent_items' with unique index 'ix_parent_items_id_ordinal'
I have tried mapping this constraint to the child entity by using #UniqueConstraints(), but this doesn't appear to change the behavior.
I am currently working around this by manually looking at the current items and updating the ones that would cause the constraint violation with the new values.
Am I missing something? This seems like a fairly common use case, but maybe I'm trying too hard to shoe-horn hibernate into a legacy database design. I'd love to be able to make things work against our current data without having to modify the schema.
I see that I can write a custom controller and service, à la https://github.com/olivergierke/spring-restbucks, and this would let me handle the entityManager and flush in between. The problem I see going that way is that it seems that I lose the entire benefit of using spring-data-rest in the first place, which solves 99% of my problems with almost no code. Is there somewhere that I can shim in a custom handler for this operation without rewriting all the other operations I get for free?
In order to customize Spring Data REST (my way to do, I have to speak about with Spring Data REST guys) like following:
Consider we have a exposed repository UserRepository on /users/, you should have at least the following API:
...
/users/{id} GET
/users/{id} DELETE
...
Now you want to override /users/{id} DELETE but keep other API to be handle by Spring Data REST.
The natural approach (again in my opinion) is to write your own UserController (and your custom UserService) like following:
#RestController
#RequestMapping("/users")
public class UserController {
#Inject
private UserService userService;
#ResponseStatus(value = HttpStatus.NO_CONTENT)
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.DELETE, value = "/{user}")
public void delete(#Valid #PathVariable("user") User user) {
if (!user.isActive()) {
throw new UserNotFoundException(user);
}
user.setActive(false);
userService.save(user);
}
}
But by doing this, the following mapping /users will now be handle by org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.method.annotation.RequestMappingHandlerMapping instead of org.springframework.data.rest.webmvc.RepositoryRestHandlerMapping.
And if you pay attention on method handleNoMatch of org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.method.RequestMappingInfoHandlerMapping (parent of org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.method.annotation.RequestMappingHandlerMapping) you can see the following thing:
else if (patternAndMethodMatches.isEmpty() && !allowedMethods.isEmpty()) {
throw new HttpRequestMethodNotSupportedException(request.getMethod(), allowedMethods);
}
patternAndMethodMatches.isEmpty(): return TRUE if url and method (GET, POST, ...) does not match.
So if you are asking for /users/{id} GET it will be TRUE because GET only exists on Spring Data REST exposed repository controller.
!allowedMethods.isEmpty(): return TRUE if at least 1 method GET, POST or something else matches for the given url.
And again it's true for /users/{id} GET because /users/{id} DELETE exists.
So Spring will throw an HttpRequestMethodNotSupportedException.
In order to by-pass this problem I created my own HandlerMapping with the following logic:
The HandlerMapping has a list of HandlerMapping (here RequestMappingInfoHandlerMapping and RepositoryRestHandlerMapping)
The HandlerMapping loops over this list and delegate the request. If an exception occurs we keep it (we keep only the first exception in fact) and we continues to the other handler. At the end if all handlers of the list throw an exception we rethrow the first exception (previously keeped).
Moreover we implements org.springframework.core.Ordered in order to place the handler before org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.method.annotation.RequestMappingHandlerMapping.
import org.springframework.core.Ordered;
import org.springframework.util.Assert;
import org.springframework.web.servlet.HandlerExecutionChain;
import org.springframework.web.servlet.HandlerMapping;
import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest;
import java.util.List;
/**
* #author Thibaud Lepretre
*/
public class OrderedOverridingHandlerMapping implements HandlerMapping, Ordered {
private List<HandlerMapping> handlers;
public OrderedOverridingHandlerMapping(List<HandlerMapping> handlers) {
Assert.notNull(handlers);
this.handlers = handlers;
}
#Override
public HandlerExecutionChain getHandler(HttpServletRequest request) throws Exception {
Exception firstException = null;
for (HandlerMapping handler : handlers) {
try {
return handler.getHandler(request);
} catch (Exception e) {
if (firstException == null) {
firstException = e;
}
}
}
if (firstException != null) {
throw firstException;
}
return null;
}
#Override
public int getOrder() {
return -1;
}
}
Now let's create our bean
#Inject
#Bean
#ConditionalOnWebApplication
public HandlerMapping orderedOverridingHandlerMapping(HandlerMapping requestMappingHandlerMapping,
HandlerMapping repositoryExporterHandlerMapping) {
List<HandlerMapping> handlers = Arrays.asList(requestMappingHandlerMapping, repositoryExporterHandlerMapping);
return new OrderedOverridingHandlerMapping(handlers);
}
Et voilà.

Resources