I tried to reverse engineer the POJOs from Database Schema using hibernate. While the classes and their DAO generated properly, I found that the relations between classes were not generated.
For ex, Friend table has reference to User table but the Friend table only contains the ids and not the actual User object.
I tried to find out the cause of it, but couldnt. One weird thing that i found was the .reveng.xml file did not contain any property values, if that is weird.
You need to specify both Friend and User table in .reveng.xml file
<table-filter match-name="Friend" />
<table-filter match-name="User" />
I think this will resolve your problem.
Related
I'm having a JPA-Project in IntelliJ Idea and there are some entities my colleague mapped some time ago. Now the DB team added a bunch of tables I'm trying to add as entities to the Java-Project. But when I'm trying to map a new entity to a existing entity IntelliJ Idea doesn't know the entity. So I'm wondering, if the only way is to re-import the table?
BankEntity exists in the JavaProject, but the mapper doesn't recognize it.
Thanks !
If it is an entity that is newly added to the Intellij project, it is unaware of the related table in the database.
You have to Generate Persistence Mapping -> By Database Schema and choose/define the the datasource and then import the table. If the definition of an already mapped entity have been changed(e.g. new column added), then a refresh might help.
I'm going to answer my own question: When generating the entities, Intelli recognizes that there is an existing entity and only add the new attributes to that class. It's somehow confusing, that you have to select the entity like a new entity...but it work's.
hi I have an entity with this annotation
#Entity
#Table(name = "REPORT_WORK")
But for some reason hibernate keep saying Missing Table: REPORT_REPORT_WORK
I know that is the problem because of when I change the name to "REPORT_WORKX"
It will say Missing Table: REPORT_REPORT_WORKX
Has any encountered this issue before?
Update: when I change the name to JJJJ
It will say Missing Table: REPORT_JJJJ
so for some reason there it is auto appending REPORT_
Configuration:
hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto=validate
I suspect that the problem is your Hibernate configurations. Specifically, if you don't have an appropriate setting for hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto, Hibernate won't automatically update the database schema when you change your model.
(And if you don't want the updates to happen automatically, then you need to figure out what schema changes are needed, code them as SQL DDL, and run them manually.)
Can you post your persistence.xml (or equivalent)?
It sounds like you are implementing org.hibernate.cfg.NamingStrategy, get rid of this configuration.
Some additional info:
JPA (Hibernate) and custom table prefixes
I would like to evaluate JPA on an existing project. The database model and the java classes exists and are currently mapped via self generated code. The database model and the java classes do not fit ideally together - but the custom mapping works well. Nevertheless the usage of JPA in general seems worth a try.
As you see I am new to JPA and have to do the work with xml configuration. Currently I am working on a one-to-many unidirectional relationship using a join table (please do not discuss this szenario here).
A (one - relationship owner) <-> AB (JoinTable) <-> B (many)
The tables look like this
A
--
ID
BREF
...
B
--
ID
...
AB
--
A_BREF (foreign key to a reference column in A which is NOT the id)
B_ID
I would like to define a unidirectional one-to-many relationship for class A.
class A {
private List<B> bs;
}
and did it like this:
<one-to-many name="bs">
<join-table name="ab">
<join-column name="a_bref">
<referenced-column-name name="bref" />
</join-column>
<inverse-join-column name="b_id">
<referenced-column-name name="id" />
</inverse-join-column>
</join-table>
</one-to-many>
Althoug this does not force an error it is not working. The problem is that the join table does not work on the ID column of A. The query to select the "B" entities works with the A.ID column value instead of the A.BREF column value to select the entities.
(How) can I make this mapping work (I use eclipselink 2.2.0)?
Thanks for any suggestion!
EDIT:
After looking at a link provided in #SJuan76 answer I slightly modified my mapping to
<one-to-many name="bs">
<join-table name="ab">
<join-column name="a_bref" referenced-column-name="bref" />
<inverse-join-column name="b_id" referenced-column-name="id" />
</join-table>
</one-to-many>
This now causes the following errors (tested with eclipselink 2.1.0 and 2.2.0)
eclipselink 2.1.0
Exception Description: The parameter
name [bref] in the query's selection
criteria does not match any parameter
name defined in the query.
eclipselink 2.2.0
Exception Description: The reference
column name [bref] mapped on the
element [field bs] does not
correspond to a valid field on the
mapping reference.
By the way - if I remove the referenced-column-name="bref" from the definition I get the same exception for the referenced-column-name="id" on the inverse-join-column element. So I doubt that I have understood referenced-column-name correct. I used it to specify the database column name of the tables which are related to the join table. Is this correct?
SOLUTION:
The final error in my szenario was that I did not have the BREF field definied in my class
class A {
private long bref; // missing !
private List<B> bs;
}
and in my orm.xml mapping file for this class
<basic name="bref">
<column name="bref" />
</basic>
I was not aware that I have to define the used join mapping referenced-column-name attributes somewhere in my mapping classes (as I also did not have the join-table itself or the name attributes of join-column/inverse-join-column mapped to a class or class members.)
Also the tip to check the case issue was helpful for me. I feel now quite to verbose in specifying my mapping as I overwrite all default (uppercase) mappings with lowercase values. As my database is not case sensitive I will use upper case notation if special mapping is needed to go with the default.
+1 for all!
Can you try defining the field as "BREF" or the same exact case used if you defined it on the attribute mapping, or you can try setting the eclipselink.jpa.uppercase-column-names persistence property to true. This is likely the issue with "id" when referenced-column-name="bref" is removed, since it is likely the field in the entity defaults to "ID".
In general JPA requires that the foreign keys/join columns reference the primary key/Id of the Entity. But, this should work with EclipseLink, so please include the SQL that is being generated, and if it is wrong, please log a bug.
How is the Id of A defined, is it just ID or ID and BREF?
You can use a DescriptorCustomizer to customize the ManyToManyMapping for the relationship and set the correct foreign key field name.
Looks like jpa is something which makes me ask a lot of questions.
Having added this
<property name="toplink.ddl-generation" value="create-tables"/>
my JPA application always creates tables when running, which results in exceptions in case the tables already exist. I would like JPA to check if the tables already exist and if not create them, however I could not find a value for the property above which does this.
So if I just turn it off, is there a way to tell JPA manually at some point to create all the tables?
Update here's the exception I get
Internal Exception: com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLSyntaxErrorException: Table 'tags' already exists
Error Code: 1050
Call: CREATE TABLE tags (ID BIGINT AUTO_INCREMENT NOT NULL, NAME VARCHAR(255), OCCURRENCE INTEGER, PRIMARY KEY (ID))
MySQLSyntaxErrorException?! Now that's wrong for sure
According to http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/toplink/JPA/essentials/toplink-jpa-extensions.html#Java2DBSchemaGen toplink does not have an option to update exiting tables, I'm not sure if I would trust it to do the right thing anyway.
You could configure toplink to generate a sql script that you then would have to execute manually to create all tables. The filenames and location can be configured like this:
<property name="toplink.ddl-generation" value="create-tables"/>
<property name="toplink.ddl-generation.output-mode" value="sql-script"/>
<property name="toplink.create-ddl-jdbc-file-name" value="createDDL.sql"/>
<property name="toplink.drop-ddl-jdbc-file-name" value="dropDDL.sql"/>
<property name="toplink.application-location" value="/tmp"/>
I would like [my] JPA [provider] to check if the tables already exist and if not create them, however I could not find a value for the property above which does this.
Weird, according to the TopLink Essentials documentation about the toplink.ddl-generation extension, create-table should leave existing table unchanged:
TopLink JPA Extensions for Schema Generation
Specify what Data Descriptor Language
(DDL) generation action you want for
your JPA entities. To specify the DDL
generation target, see
toplink.ddl-generation.output-mode.
Valid values: oracle.toplink.essentials.ejb.cmp3.EntityManagerFactoryProvider
none - do not generate DDL; no
schema is generated.
create-tables - create DDL for
non-existent tables; leave existing
tables unchanged (see also
toplink.create-ddl-jdbc-file-name).
drop-and-create-tables - create DDL for all tables; drop all existing
tables (see also
toplink.create-ddl-jdbc-file-name
and
toplink.drop-ddl-jdbc-file-name).
If you are using persistence outside
the EJB container and would like to
create the DDL files without creating
tables, additionally define a Java
system property INTERACT_WITH_DB and
set its value to false.
Liquibase (http://www.liquibase.org) is good at this. It takes some time to get fully used to it, but I think it's worth the effort.
The Liquibase-way is independent of which JPA persistence provider you use. Actually, it's even database agnostic.
I have a spring-hibernate application which is failing to map an object properly: basically I have 2 domain objects, a Post and a User. The semantics are that every Post has 1 corresponding User.
The Post domain object looks roughly as follows:
class Post {
private int pId;
private String attribute;
...
private User user;
//getters and setters here
}
As you can see, Post contains a reference to User. When I load a Post object, I want to corresponding User object to be loaded (lazily - only when its needed).
My mapping looks as follows:
<class name="com...Post" table="post">
<id name="pId" column="PostId" />
<property name="attribute" column="Attribute" type="java.lang.String" />
<one-to-one name="User" fetch="join"
class="com...User"></one-to-one>
</class>
And of course I have a basic mapping for User set up.
As far as my table schema is concerned, I have a table called post with a foreign UserId which links to the user table.
I thought this setup should work, BUT when I load a page that forces the lazy loading of the User object, I notice the following Hiberate query being generated:
Select ... from post this_ left outer join user user2_ on this.PostId=user2_.UserId ...
Obviously this is wrong: it should be joining UserId from post with UserId from user, but instead its incorrectly joining PostId from post (its primary key) with UserId from user.
Any ideas? Thanks!
Update:
Thanks to a couple of the posts below I now realize that I should have been using a many-to-one mapping instead of a one-to-one. I changed the mapping under post to the following:
<many-to-one name="User" class="com...User" column="uId"/>
But now I get a run-time error telling me that there is no attribute called uId. This makes sense since I do not have a uId column in my post domain object (I simply have a reference to a user object). Now I am really confused as to how I can get Hibernate to realize that it needs to map the foreign key from the post table to the user table. Should explicitly add a uId attribute to my post domain object to be a placeholder for the foreign key?
I hope I am making sense...
Since a user has many posts, your association is in fact a "many-to-one", not a "one-to-one". It should work if you map it accordingly.
Edit: Yes, you can map the property Post.user on the Post with a "many-to-one", or the set User.posts in User with a "one-to-many", or both. Have you specified the name of your foreign key column?
Edit2: In Hibernate speak, a "column" in the database is mapped to a "property" in your Java-Class. That is, the column attribute contains the name of your foreign key column in the database, not the name of any property in your Java class. If I read your question right, you should use "UserId", not "uId".
Oh, and a fetch="join" can not be lazy, as it mandates that the user is fetched in the same query as the post.
That is the behaviour of a one-to-one mapping. They usually share a primary key. Hibernate is assuming that the primary key of post is teh same as the primary key of user. This page summarizes this behaviour.
I suspect that one user can actually have more than one posts though. That makes your mapping a one-to-many.