I followed the example on here for dynamically selecting the implementation to inject during run time. I then try to implement it based on my understanding but my code always return the default implementation;
Here is my code
#Stateless
public class MemberRegistration {
#Inject
private Logger log;
#Inject
private EntityManager em;
#Inject
private Event<Member> memberEventSrc;
#Inject
#Switch
IHandler handler;
private int handlerValue;
public String testCDI(int value) {
handlerValue = value;
log.info("handling " + value);
log.info("handling " + handlerValue);
return handler.handle();
}
#Produces
#RequestScoped
#Switch
public IHandler produceHandler(#New Handler0 handler0,
#New Handler1 handler1) {
log.info("Calling producer method with handler: "+handlerValue);
switch (handlerValue) {
case 1:
log.info("returning one");
return handler1;
case 0:
log.info("returning 0");
return handler0;
default:
log.info("returning default");
return handler1;
}
}
}
When i call the method testCDI I then update the handlerValue so that my producer method can use that value. What am I missing here to ensure that the producer method is called when the right value is available?
The code is running on Wildfly 8.2.0
The instance injected isn't going to be resolved when you call the method, but at the time of injection of the bean (the stateless session bean in this case). As a result, handlerValue will be 0.
You can however use an Instance<IHandler> to defer the injection. Use an annotation literal instead of your switch to do something like
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<IHandler> handlerInst
Then in your code
IHandler handler = handlerInst.select(new SwitchLiteral(value)).get();
then do work against that guy, but in your producer you need to use the InjectionPoint class to read the Switch annotation represented by the SwitchLiteral
You are running into cycling dependency here with your simplified code. Fields injected with plain #Inject need to be resolved BEFORE MemberRegistration is created, but handler field can only be created with a producer method AFTER MemberRegistration is created (beans with producer methods are created according to same rules as other CDI beans).
There are 2 solutions:
Either you create a separate HandlerProducer class, which will contain produceHandler() method and also handlerValue field. You should mark the class as #ApplicationScoped in order to reuse the same instance all over.
Or you need not only to produce IHandler dynamically, but also use (inject it) dynamically only when really needed in the MemberRegistration - this way handler is produced not BEFORE MemberRegistration is created, but after or never if not required. You do this by injecting Instance object and then use its get() method to retrieve handler when needed. Anyway, I am not sure if CDI will create a new instance every time, or reuse existing EJB. Scopes of EJBs and plain CDI beans are completely different and in general, I would not use an EJB as a bean with producer methods. It is better to always create a separate bean for producer methods, as in solution 1.
Example for solution 2 follows:
#Inject
#Switch
Instance<IHandler> handlerInjector;
private int handlerValue;
public String testCDI(int value) {
handlerValue = value;
log.info("handling " + value);
log.info("handling " + handlerValue);
return handlerInjector.get().handle();
}
Related
1) Contextualization:
In order, to have a complete test-isolation-state in all test of my Test-Class;
I would like to have a new-instance-repository(DAO) for each individual test;
My Repository is a Interface, thats the why I can not simply instantiate that.
My Goal is:
Run all tests 'Parallelly', meaning 'at the same time';
That's the why, I need individual/multiple instances of Repository(DAO) in each test;
Those multiple instances will make sure that the tests' conclusion would not interfere on those that still is running.
Below is the code for the above situation:
1.1) Code:
Current working status: working, BUT with ths SAME-REPOSITORY-INSTANCE;
Current behaviour:
The tests are not stable;
SOMETIMES, they interfere in each other;
meaning, the test that finalize early, destroy the Repository Bean that still is being used, for the test that is still running.
public class ServiceTests2 extends ConfigTests {
private List<Customer> customerList;
private Flux<Customer> customerFlux;
#Lazy
#Autowired
private ICustomerRepo repo;
private ICustomerService service;
#BeforeEach
public void setUp() {
service = new CustomerService(repo);
Customer customer1 = customerWithName().create();
Customer customer2 = customerWithName().create();
customerList = Arrays.asList(customer1,customer2);
customerFlux = service.saveAll(customerList);
}
#Test
#DisplayName("Save")
public void save() {
StepVerifier.create(customerFlux)
.expectNextSequence(customerList)
.verifyComplete();
}
#Test
#DisplayName("Find: Objects")
public void find_object() {
StepVerifier
.create(customerFlux)
.expectNext(customerList.get(0))
.expectNext(customerList.get(1))
.verifyComplete();
}
}
2) The ERROR happening:
This ERROR happens in the failed-Tests:
3) Question:
How Can I create multiple instances of Repository
Even if, it being a Interface(does not allow instantation)?
In order, to have a COMPLETE TEST-ISOLATION
Meaning: ONE different instance of Repository in each test?
Thanks a lot for any help or idea
You can use the #DirtiesContext annotation on the test class that modifies the application context.
Java Doc
Spring documentation
By default, this will mark the application context as dirty after the entire test class is run. If you would like to mark the context as dirty after a single test method, then you can either annotate the test method instead or set the classMode property to AFTER_EACH_TEST_METHOD at your class level annotation.
#DirtiesContext(classMode = ClassMode.AFTER_EACH_TEST_METHOD)
When an application context is marked dirty, it is removed from the
testing framework's cache and closed; thus the underlying Spring
container is rebuilt for any subsequent test that requires a context
with the same set of resource locations.
I have a service that is using a Spring Data Repository to retrieve an object. The service is NOT marked as transactional, thus I assumed that any object returned from the repository would be detached since the transaction would be scoped to the repository. However, it seems as though the object is NOT detached which surprises me. Here is a code sample:
public class MyService {
#Autowired
private MyRepository repo;
#Autowired
private EntityManager entityManager;
/**
* Updates a persisted entity based on the given DTO representation.
*/
public MyObjectDto update(MyObjectDto dto) {
MyObjectJpa existing = repo.findOne(dto.getId());
entityManager.isJoinedToTransaction(); // returns false so no transaction should be active in this scope I would assume
entityManager.contains(existing); // this returns true, but I don't know why
if (existing != null) {
MyObjectJpa updated = toJpa(dto);
// calling repo.save(..) modifies the state of 'existing' object which surpised me
MyObjectDto updatedDto = toDto(repo.save(updated));
return updatedDto;
}
return null;
}
Why is the 'existing' object in my code sample still managed by the entityManager even though my service method is not marked as transactional (i.e. not using the #Transactional annotation from Spring)? Thanks.
In Spring Boot parameter spring.jpa.open-in-view is set to true by default.
I think you should turn it to false.
From java-doc:
Register OpenEntityManagerInViewInterceptor. Binds a JPA EntityManager to the thread for the entire processing of the request.
I came across a piece of code where the bean implementation class has #TransactionManagement(TransactionManagementType.BEAN) annotation wherein methods are annotated with CMT #TransactionAttribute. Is is valid?
Can an EJB with BMT persistence use CMT transaction annotation? What will be the behavior at runtime?
Though javadoc http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/ejb/TransactionAttribute.html says that "It can only be specified if container managed transaction demarcation is used.", specifying it doesn't throw any compilation error. Does it mean that jvm simply ignores it at runtime?
#Stateless( mappedName = "Abc")
#Remote("AbcRemote.class")
#Local("AbcLocal.class")
#TransactionManagement(TransactionManagementType.BEAN)
public class AbcBean implements AbcLocal, AbcRemote{
#Resource
private UserTransaction utx;
#PersistenceUnit
private EntityManagerFactory emf;
#Override
#TransactionAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRED)
public Abc getAlpbabets(String name) {
EntityManager em = null;
try {
em = emf.createEntityManager();
}
catch (RuntimeException re) {
throw re;
}
finally {
}
}
}
If you use CMT, then #TransactionAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRED) would tell the container to check for an existing transaction and open one if there is none.
But if you use BMT, then it's your responsibility to do such a thing, so there's no one to observe the annotation above. Since it is still syntactically correct and the class is available, there is no need for the JVM to complain about.
Concerning ignoring annotations, there's a hint in the answer to this question.
It seems Guice is ignoring my #Provider methods of my module.
I have a class MyModule like this:
public class MyModule extends AbstractModule {
protected void configure() {
bindInterceptor(Matchers.any(), Matchers.annotatedWith(Timed.class), new GuiceEnabledLoggingInterceptor());
bind(OneClass.class).to(OneClassImpl.class);
// And more binding lines...
}
#Provides
public AnotherClassInApi provideMyClass() {
return AnotherClassInApi.getInstance();
}
// And more #Provides methods
}
Main method is
public static void main(String[] args){
ConfigHandler.getInstance().loadConfigWhenNotRunningInsideMicrocontainer();
Injector INJECTOR = Guice.createInjector(new MyModule());
// ...
}
In some other part of the project I have class AnotherClassInApi, which is a very standard singleton plus one method:
public class AnotherClassInApi {
private static final AnotherClassInApi INSTANCE = new AnotherClassInApi();
private AnotherClassInApi() { }
// ... more methods
public static AnotherClassInApi getInstance() {
return INSTANCE;
}
}
Well, I understand that should effectively bind any request for an AnotherClassInApi object to the getInstance() method, but it doesn't work. Funny thing, a breakpoint in the #Provide method is never reached while debugging, but one in the configure method is reached. It seems guice is ignoring my provider annotation, and I think I'm following exactly what Guice guide says about #Provider, so I'm already stuck.
I've been googling around, but can't find anything similar. Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
The concept of Providers (and #Provides methods) is, that they are only called when actually needed. So unless you really use your Injector to create an instance that has an #Inject dependency, your Provider is not ignored, just not used (nor needed).
You can monitor all configured bindings by using "injector.getAllBindings()".
java.util.Map,Binding> getAllBindings()
Returns a snapshot
of this injector's bindings, both explicit and just-in-time. The
returned map is immutable; it contains only the bindings that were
present when getAllBindings() was invoked. Just-in-time bindings are
only present if they have been requested at least once. Subsequent
calls may return a map with additional just-in-time bindings. The
returned map does not include bindings inherited from a parent
injector, should one exist.
This method is part of the Guice SPI and is intended for use by tools
and extensions.
I want to do something like this:
#Stateless
#Path("/sensors/{sensorid}/version")
#Consumes({MediaType.APPLICATION_XML, MediaType.TEXT_XML})
#Produces({MediaType.APPLICATION_XML, MediaType.TEXT_XML})
public class SensorVersionRestView extends VersionRestView{
#PathParam("sensorid")
private String sensorid;
#GET
#Path("count")
// so the complete path is i.e.
// domain.com/rs/sensors/111211/version/count
public void getCount() {
// do something with the sensorId....
}
}
But the only thing I get is null on runtime (I use Glassfish v3 with Jersey). The compiler and eclipse never mentions a problem with the #PathParam at the member class variable.
What's wrong with my construct?
The main problem is, why I doesn't want to use the whole path on each method in this class, that there exists another class which handles some rest operations on the sensor layer (deomain.com/rs/sensors/count i.e.)
I believe you need to change it to this:
#Stateless
#Path("/sensors/{sensorid}/version")
public class SensorVersionRestView extends VersionRestView {
#GET
#Path("count")
#Consumes({MediaType.APPLICATION_XML, MediaType.TEXT_XML})
#Produces({MediaType.APPLICATION_XML, MediaType.TEXT_XML})
// domain.com/rs/sensors/111211/version/count
public void getCount(#PathParam("sensorid") String sensorid) {
// do something with the sensorId....
}
}
Because injection occurs at object
creation time, use of this annotation
on resource class fields and bean
properties is only supported for the
default per-request resource class
lifecycle. Resource classes using
other lifecycles should only use this
annotation on resource method
parameters. - JSR-311 Javadocs
You should be able to annotate fields with #PathParam as long as the resource class lifecyle is per-request. By default the life-cycle of root resource classes is per-request.
EDIT: I don't think you can achieve this using EJBs. If you remove the #Stateless annotation, it should work.