We Keep Coding

SpringBoot application fails startup when I have Aspect defined on a Bean Method

Working with Springboot 2.7.0. I had a a working application and I made these changes on top of it
Aspect Configuration
#Configuration
#EnableAspectJAutoProxy
#ComponentScan
public class AspectConfig {}
Aspect Interface
#Target(ElementType.METHOD)
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public #interface Timed { }
Aspect Class to Measure method execution time
#Around("#annotation(Timed)")
public Object measureExecutionTime(ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint) throws Throwable {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
Object proceed = joinPoint.proceed();
LOG.info("Time taken for {} is {} ms, joinPoint.getSignature(), System.currentTimeMillis() - start,);
return proceed;
}
Added the new #Timed annotation to an existing method in a bean (omitting non relevant code)
#Component
#ConditionalOnExpression("${oauth.enabled}")
public class JwtAuthFilter extends OncePerRequestFilter {
#Timed
public boolean verifySignatureAndExpiry(String bearerToken){
// method logic
}
}
This causes the Springboot application to fail startup.
I can get it to start if I add #Aspect to the JwtAuthFilter class.
but why would I need to do that? It makes the #Timed annotation limited use if I have to annotate every class that needs to use it with #Aspect. Not to mention, though there are no errors, the functionality won't work because an Aspect cannot work on another Aspect.
#Timed works on my controller method though.
#RestController
#RequestMapping(value = "/api/v1", produces = MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON_VALUE)
public class HealthController {
#GetMapping("/health")
#Timed
public Map<String, String> health(){
return Map.of("status", "up");
}
}

This causes the Spring Boot application to fail startup.
You should always post error messages and relevant stack traces, not just say "fails to start up". You are lucky that in this case, I remember the situation, so I can answer your question. Normally, I would be unable to do so without further information.
I can get it to start if I add #Aspect to the JwtAuthFilter class.
That does not make any sense. Why would you add #Aspect to something which is not an aspect? Of course, it makes the start-up error go away, but it also makes your real aspect not fire, because one Spring AOP aspect cannot advise another one, as you already mentioned. Therefore, this approach is - with all due respect - complete nonsense.
The reason for the exception is: You cannot advise your filter by Spring AOP, because it is derived from GenericFilterBean, which has some final methods. Final methods cannot be overriden, therefore not be proxied either. This has the effect of those methods being called upon the proxy instance directly instead of being delegated to the target object, i.e. if such a method accesses an instance field, it shall find it uninitialised, because the proxy's fields are not meant to be initialised, only the target object's ones. See also my answer here for more info.
In this case, final method org.springframework.web.filter.GenericFilterBean#init is trying to access this.logger, which leads to the NPE which makes Spring Boot's Tomcat fail to start up. This has been reported and briefly explained in this comment in Spring issue #27963, which has been closed as invalid.
#Timed works on my controller method though.
Yes, because your controller does not have a problem with accessing an instance field from a final method.
If you absolutely think that you need to measure your filter method's execution time from an aspect, you can switch from Spring AOP to native AspectJ, either for the whole project via load-time weaving or selectively for some target classes via compile-time weaving. I have tried locally, it works with the right pointcut. Then you can also advise your filter. FYI, the pointcut would be something like:
// Annotated class
#Around("execution(* *(..)) && !within(MyAspect) && #target(Timed)")
// Annotated method
#Around("execution(* *(..)) && !within(MyAspect) && #annotation(Timed)")
AspectJ is more powerful than Spring AOP, so you explicitly need to limit matching to method executions, otherwise other joinpoints such as method calls, constructor calls and others would be affected, too. You also need to make sure that the aspect does not advise itself or other aspects, which is perfectly possible in AspectJ.

#Transactional annotation at service layer does not rollback, jdbcTemplate [duplicate]

I have recently noticed that Spring successfully intercepts intra class function calls in a #Configuration class but not in a regular bean.
A call like this
#Repository
public class CustomerDAO {
#Transactional(value=TxType.REQUIRED)
public void saveCustomer() {
// some DB stuff here...
saveCustomer2();
}
#Transactional(value=TxType.REQUIRES_NEW)
public void saveCustomer2() {
// more DB stuff here
}
}
fails to start a new transaction because while the code of saveCustomer() executes in the CustomerDAO proxy, the code of saveCustomer2() gets executed in the unwrapped CustomerDAO class, as I can see by looking at 'this' in the debugger, and so Spring has no chance to intercept the call to saveCustomer2.
However, in the following example, when transactionManager() calls createDataSource() it is correctly intercepted and calls createDataSource() of the proxy, not of the unwrapped class, as evidenced by looking at 'this' in the debugger.
#Configuration
public class PersistenceJPAConfig {
#Bean
public DriverManagerDataSource createDataSource() {
DriverManagerDataSource dataSource = new DriverManagerDataSource();
//dataSource.set ... DB stuff here
return dataSource;
}
#Bean
public PlatformTransactionManager transactionManager( ){
DataSourceTransactionManager transactionManager = new DataSourceTransactionManager(createDataSource());
return transactionManager;
}
}
So my question is, why can Spring correctly intercept the intra class function calls in the second example, but not in the first. Is it using different types of dynamic proxies?
Edit:
From the answers here and other sources I now understand the following:
#Transactional is implemented using Spring AOP, where the proxy pattern is carried out by wrapping/composition of the user class. The AOP proxy is generic enough so that many Aspects can be chained together, and may be a CGLib proxy or a Java Dynamic Proxy.
In the #Configuration class, Spring also uses CGLib to create an enhanced class which inherits from the user #Configuration class, and overrides the user's #Bean functions with ones that do some extra work before calling the user's/super function such as check if this is the first invocation of the function or not. Is this class a proxy? It depends on the definition. You may say that it is a proxy which uses inheritance from the real object instead of wrapping it using composition.
To sum up, from the answers given here I understand these are two entirely different mechanisms. Why these design choices were made is another, open question.

Is it using different types of dynamic proxies?
Almost exactly
Let's figure out what's the difference between #Configuration classes and AOP proxies answering the following questions:
Why self-invoked #Transactional method has no transactional semantics even though Spring is capable of intercepting self-invoked methods?
How #Configuration and AOP are related?
Why self-invoked #Transactional method has no transactional semantics?
Short answer:
This is how AOP made.
Long answer:
Declarative transaction management relies on AOP (for the majority of Spring applications on Spring AOP)
The Spring Framework’s declarative transaction management is made possible with Spring aspect-oriented programming (AOP)
It is proxy-based (§5.8.1. Understanding AOP Proxies)
Spring AOP is proxy-based.
From the same paragraph SimplePojo.java:
public class SimplePojo implements Pojo {
public void foo() {
// this next method invocation is a direct call on the 'this' reference
this.bar();
}
public void bar() {
// some logic...
}
}
And a snippet proxying it:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ProxyFactory factory = new ProxyFactory(new SimplePojo());
factory.addInterface(Pojo.class);
factory.addAdvice(new RetryAdvice());
Pojo pojo = (Pojo) factory.getProxy();
// this is a method call on the proxy!
pojo.foo();
}
}
The key thing to understand here is that the client code inside the main(..) method of the Main class has a reference to the proxy.
This means that method calls on that object reference are calls on the proxy.
As a result, the proxy can delegate to all of the interceptors (advice) that are relevant to that particular method call.
However, once the call has finally reached the target object (the SimplePojo, reference in this case), any method calls that it may make on itself, such as this.bar() or this.foo(), are going to be invoked against the this reference, and not the proxy.
This has important implications. It means that self-invocation is not going to result in the advice associated with a method invocation getting a chance to execute.
(Key parts are emphasized.)
You may think that aop works as follows:
Imagine we have a Foo class which we want to proxy:
Foo.java:
public class Foo {
public int getInt() {
return 42;
}
}
There is nothing special. Just getInt method returning 42
An interceptor:
Interceptor.java:
public interface Interceptor {
Object invoke(InterceptingFoo interceptingFoo);
}
LogInterceptor.java (for demonstration):
public class LogInterceptor implements Interceptor {
#Override
public Object invoke(InterceptingFoo interceptingFoo) {
System.out.println("log. before");
try {
return interceptingFoo.getInt();
} finally {
System.out.println("log. after");
}
}
}
InvokeTargetInterceptor.java:
public class InvokeTargetInterceptor implements Interceptor {
#Override
public Object invoke(InterceptingFoo interceptingFoo) {
try {
System.out.println("Invoking target");
Object targetRetVal = interceptingFoo.method.invoke(interceptingFoo.target);
System.out.println("Target returned " + targetRetVal);
return targetRetVal;
} catch (Throwable t) {
throw new RuntimeException(t);
} finally {
System.out.println("Invoked target");
}
}
}
Finally InterceptingFoo.java:
public class InterceptingFoo extends Foo {
public Foo target;
public List<Interceptor> interceptors = new ArrayList<>();
public int index = 0;
public Method method;
#Override
public int getInt() {
try {
Interceptor interceptor = interceptors.get(index++);
return (Integer) interceptor.invoke(this);
} finally {
index--;
}
}
}
Wiring everything together:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Throwable {
Foo target = new Foo();
InterceptingFoo interceptingFoo = new InterceptingFoo();
interceptingFoo.method = Foo.class.getDeclaredMethod("getInt");
interceptingFoo.target = target;
interceptingFoo.interceptors.add(new LogInterceptor());
interceptingFoo.interceptors.add(new InvokeTargetInterceptor());
interceptingFoo.getInt();
interceptingFoo.getInt();
}
Will print:
log. before
Invoking target
Target returned 42
Invoked target
log. after
log. before
Invoking target
Target returned 42
Invoked target
log. after
Now let's take a look at ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
Here is a part of its proceed method:
Object interceptorOrInterceptionAdvice = this.interceptorsAndDynamicMethodMatchers.get(++this.currentInterceptorIndex);
++this.currentInterceptorIndex should look familiar now
Here is the target
And there are interceptors
the method
the index
You may try introducing several aspects into your application and see the stack growing at the proceed method when advised method is invoked
Finally everything ends up at MethodProxy.
From its invoke method javadoc:
Invoke the original method, on a different object of the same type.
And as I mentioned previously documentation:
once the call has finally reached the target object any method calls that it may make on itself are going to be invoked against the this reference, and not the proxy
I hope now, more or less, it's clear why.
How #Configuration and AOP are related?
The answer is they are not related.
So Spring here is free to do whatever it wants. Here it is not tied to the proxy AOP semantics.
It enhances such classes using ConfigurationClassEnhancer.
Take a look at:
CALLBACKS
BeanMethodInterceptor
BeanFactoryAwareMethodInterceptor
Returning to the question
If Spring can successfully intercept intra class function calls in a #Configuration class, why does it not support it in a regular bean?
I hope from technical point of view it is clear why.
Now my thoughts from non-technical side:
I think it is not done because Spring AOP is here long enough...
Since Spring Framework 5 the Spring WebFlux framework has been introduced.
Currently Spring Team is working hard towards enhancing reactive programming model
See some notable recent blog posts:
Reactive Transactions with Spring
Spring Data R2DBC 1.0 M2 and Spring Boot starter released
Going Reactive with Spring, Coroutines and Kotlin Flow
More and more features towards less-proxying approach of building Spring applications are introduced. (see this commit for example)
So I think that even though it might be possible to do what you've described it is far from Spring Team's #1 priority for now

Because AOP proxies and #Configuration class serve a different purpose, and are implemented in a significantly different ways (even though both involve using proxies).
Basically, AOP uses composition while #Configuration uses inheritance.
AOP proxies
The way these work is basically that they create proxies that do the relevant advice logic before/after delegating the call to the original (proxied) object. The container registers this proxy instead of the proxied object itself, so all dependencies are set to this proxy and all calls from one bean to another go through this proxy. However, the proxied object itself has no pointer to the proxy (it doesn't know it's proxied, only the proxy has a pointer to the target object). So any calls within that object to other methods don't go through the proxy.
(I'm only adding this here for contrast with #Configuration, since you seem to have correct understanding of this part.)
#Configuration
Now while the objects that you usually apply the AOP proxy to are a standard part of your application, the #Configuration class is different - for one, you probably never intend to create any instances of that class directly yourself. This class truly is just a way to write configuration of the bean container, has no meaning outside Spring and you know that it will be used by Spring in a special way and that it has some special semantics outside of just plain Java code - e.g. that #Bean-annotated methods actually define Spring beans.
Because of this, Spring can do much more radical things to this class without worrying that it will break something in your code (remember, you know that you only provide this class for Spring, and you aren't going to ever create or use its instance directly).
What it actually does is it creates a proxy that's subclass of the #Configuration class. This way, it can intercept invocation of every (non-final non-private) method of the #Configuration class, even within the same object (because the methods are effectively all overriden by the proxy, and Java has all the methods virtual). The proxy does exactly this to redirect any method calls that it recognizes to be (semantically) references to Spring beans to the actual bean instances instead of invoking the superclass method.

read a bit spring source code. I try to answer it.
the point is how spring deal with the #Configurationand #bean.
in the ConfigurationClassPostProcessor which is a BeanFactoryPostProcessor, it will enhance all ConfigurationClasses and creat a Enhancer as a subClass.
this Enhancer register two CALLBACKS(BeanMethodInterceptor,BeanFactoryAwareMethodInterceptor).
you call PersistenceJPAConfig method will go through the CALLBACKS. in BeanMethodInterceptor,it will get bean from spring container.
it may be not clearly. you can see the source code in ConfigurationClassEnhancer.java BeanMethodInterceptor.ConfigurationClassPostProcessor.java enhanceConfigurationClasses

You can't call #Transactional method in same class
It's a limitation of Spring AOP (dynamic objects and cglib).
If you configure Spring to use AspectJ to handle the transactions, your code will work.
The simple and probably best alternative is to refactor your code. For example one class that handles users and one that process each user. Then default transaction handling with Spring AOP will work.
Also #Transactional should be on Service layer and not on #Repository
transactions belong on the Service layer. It's the one that knows about units of work and use cases. It's the right answer if you have several DAOs injected into a Service that need to work together in a single transaction.
So you need to rethink your transaction approach, so your methods can be reuse in a flow including several other DAO operations that are roll-able

Spring uses proxying for method invocation and when you use this... it bypasses that proxy. For #Bean annotations Spring uses reflection to find them.

Rolling back transaction with aspect in Spring boot application

I am new to the concept of Aspect-Oriented Programming. I am writing this following aspect using AspectJ in my spring boot application:
#Aspect
public class MyAspect {
private final AspectUtil aspectUtil;
public MyAspect(AspectUtil aspectUtil)) {
this.aspectUtil = aspectUtil;
}
#Pointcut("#within(org.springframework.stereotype.Service)")
public void applicationServicePointcut() {
}
#AfterReturning(value = ("applicationServicePointcut()"))
public void process(JoinPoint joinPoint) {
HttpServletRequest request = aspectUtil.getRequest();
aspectUtil.getHttpVerb(request);
processUtil(request, joinPoint);
}
public void processUtil(HttpServletRequest request) {
...
}
All of the services defined in my application are annotated with #Transactional, one example is given below:
#Service
#Transactional
public class MyService {
..
}
So, here my question is if any exception I throw from my aspect as defined above, then would the associated transaction in the service layer get rolled back?
Actually, my goal is to roll back the entire transaction in case, any exception occurs at this aspect.

An example for a similar requirement 1.4.8. Advising Transactional Operations is available in the documentation.
Exerpt :
The ordering of advice is controlled through the Ordered interface.
.........
The result of the preceding configuration is a fooService bean that
has profiling and transactional aspects applied to it in that order.
If you want the profiling advice to run after the transactional advice
on the way in and before the transactional advice on the way out, you
can swap the value of the profiling aspect bean’s order property so
that it is higher than the transactional advice’s order value...
Please do go through : Advice Ordering to understand the concept better and control the order of advice.
Also go through the conceptual view of calling a method on a transactional proxy:
Basically the idea would be to throw the exception from the custom aspect that should result in the rollback from the Transaction Advisor.

The short answer is it depends. Aspects are ordered in Spring, meaning that they run with a specific order. That means that if your aspect is set to run before the transactional aspect, then no transaction will be created and there would be nothing to actually rollback.
On the other hand, if you set this to run after the transaction aspect and it indeed throws an exception, this would automatically mean that the transaction would have ran and would be committed.
I believe you need to check on ordering of aspects to find the pattern that suits your needs the best.

How to correctly use Transaction, when working with JdbcTempalte?

I need to use JdbcTemplate in Spring.
For example, I have:
void someFunction() {
// Some logic
sql();
}
#Transactional
void sql() {
jdbcTemplate.batchUpdate(...);
}
As I understand, this is not a valid usage of transactions.
So, can I use #Transactional annotation for JdbcTemplate as follows:
#Transactional
void someFunction() {
// Some logic
jdbcTemplate.batchUpdate(...);
}
or it's better to use TransactionTemplate?

Yes you can use the annotation like that, however review this part of the Spring documentation that states
'Due to the proxy-based nature of Spring's AOP framework, protected methods are by definition not intercepted, neither for JDK proxies (where this isn't applicable) nor for CGLIB proxies (where this is technically possible but not recommendable for AOP purposes). As a consequence, any given pointcut will be matched against public methods only!'.
Therefore, your method should be a public method, which it currently is not. Update it, and your method should work.

How to call a custom rollback method in Spring Transaction Management?

Environment: Spring 3, Custom Transaction Management, JDBC Transactions
I just read the Spring docs on using the transaction template to handle transaction management. It seemed overly complex so I want to ask:
Most of my transactions are JDBC related, meaning I just declare an #Transactional on my service. But now I am making a REST service call to another site which needs to rollback if any of the following JDBC operations fail, I'll provide the rollback code in this case.
As I progress in my method, in my transaction - I want to save a reference to the REST service call (needed to roll back that action), and upon exception I just want a method myCustomRollback() called which can access the previously stored object.
Why not just provide a map in the transactionTemplate for storing stuff and define a custom rollback method on the #Transactional annotation?
This is the way I think about it, I'm not following the way Spring thinks about this. Can someone help me bridge the gap between what I want and how I accomplish it most efficiently in Spring? I only need to do this for a few special case operations.

To anyone still reading this:
I solved a similar problem with spring events - as suggested by Den Roman in option 3.
Here's the basic idea (scenario is fictional):
Whenever I perform external operations that need to be rolled back together with the transaction, I publish an event inside my #Transactional method using support from spring (org.springframework.context.ApplicationEventPublisher):
#Transactional
public String placeOrder(Order order) {
String orderId = orderServiceGateway.createOrder(order);
applicationEventPublisher.publishEvent(new OrderCreatedEvent(orderId));
workflowService.startWorkflow(orderId);
return orderId;
}
The event itself can be any object - I created a POJO with details about the remote entity to be deleted.
Then I registered a special event listener that is bound to a transaction phase - in my case to the rollback:
#TransactionalEventListener(phase = TransactionPhase.AFTER_ROLLBACK)
public void rollBackOrder(OrderCreatedEvent orderCreatedEvent) {
String orderId = orderCreatedEvent.getOrderId();
orderServiceGateway.deleteOrder(orderId);
}
Of course, it's recommended to catch & log the exception from rollback operation, not to lose the original exception from the placeOrder() method.
By default these events are synchronous, but they can be made async by additional configuration.
Here's a very good article on this mechanism, including detailed configuration and pitfalls: Transaction Synchronization and Spring Application Events (DZone)
While I don't like the solution 100% because it clutters the business logic with event publishing stuff and binds to spring, it definitely does what I expect it to do and makes it possible to pass context from the transactional method to the rollback method - which is not available through a traditional try/catch block outside of the transactional method (unless you put your context in the exception itself, which is not very nice).

I've re-read your question a few times and am not sure I understand your question completely. I assume your executing someCode and if that fails you would like to execute myCustomRollback which has some information about someCode. So I'll try to provide a Generic answer.
If you want spring to rollback some code. It will only rollback that which is rollBackAble, like jdbc transactions. Assume you have a method which performs 2 calls.
#Transactional
public void doStuff(SomeEntity entity, File file) {
persist(entity);
customFileService.createOnFileSystem(file);
throw new RunTimeException();
}
So the code above will always rollback. It will undo the persisting of your entity, but not the creation of your file, since that is not managed by Spring transactions, unless you provide custom implementation for it to be.
Second, Spring provides 2 ways of working with transactions:
Spring AOP: a proxy is created at runtime which will decorate your code with transactional stuff. If your class would be named MyClass, then Spring will create a class names MyClassProxy, which will wrap your code in transactional code.
AspectJ: at compile time your .class file will be adjusted and transactional code will be embedded inside your method.
The aspectJ approach seems harder to configure, but isn't so much and is way easier to use. Since anything which is annotated with #Transactional will be embedded (weaved) with code. For Spring AOP this is not the case. Transactional inner method calls for instance in Spring will be ignored! So aspectJ provides a more intuitive approach.
Back to what I think your question is (the code is all in 1 class):
public void doSomeCode() {
Object restCall = initialize();
try {
execute(restCall);
} catch (CustomException e) {
myCustomRollback(restCall; e);
}
}
#Transactional(rollbackFor = CustomException.class)
private void execute(Object restCall) throws CustomException {
// jdbc calls..
restCall = callRest(restCall);
throw new CustomException();
}
void myCustomRollback(Object restCall, CustomException e) {
...
}
The code above will only work with AspectJ! Since your making inner method calls which also seems to be private! AOP at runtime cannot handle this.
So what happens is everything (which is rollbackAble) in execute will be rollbacked. And in doStuff you have information about the objects which were used in execute, you now can use in myCustomRollback to rollback your REST stuff manually.
Not sure if I answered this question properly, but I hope it helps someone with a similar problem.

1 solution is to implement your own transactional manager by extending a one
2 solution is to use TransactionSynchronizationManager class
3 solution is to use #TransactionalEventListener in case you have Spring 4

Spring transaction management the default behavior for automatic rollback is for unchecked exceptions
so for a custom exception,
#Transactional(rollbackFor = CustomException.class, noRollbackFor = RuntimeException.class)
public void doSomething(...
)
the transaction be rolled back if it there is an exception that matches the specified. If an exception not matches, it is propagated to caller of the service or TransactionRolledBackException wrapper
if you use use the org.springframework.transaction.PlatformTransactionManager it is more manageable handling exceptions than template
check the documentation http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.0.x/spring-framework-reference/html/transaction.html

you can use the AfterThrowing advice (when an exception is thrown) & call your method (myCustmRollback()) there, you can use TransactionSynchronizationManager class to get thecurrent transaction & roll it back...
alternatively.. you can use the AroundAdvice to begin & commit/rollback your transaction (this way you can use the spring provided transaction manager by using the TransactionSynchronizationManager class)