glassfish
  1. glassfish
  2. GLASSFISH-18073

Named query validation happens too late

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 3.1.2_b15, 4.0_b01
    • Fix Version/s: 3.1.2_b16, 4.0_b37
    • Component/s: entity-persistence
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Currently Named query validation happens at first EM creation. This results in two issues.
      1. Archives with invalid named queries are deployed successfully and we get a runtime exception while using them
      2. If Java2db is turned on, the exception for named query validation gets the container into an inconsistent state.

      This issue has been reported in various user forums and we have also observed Arun struggling with it while developing JavaOne demo.

        Activity

        Hide
        Mitesh Meswani added a comment -
        • What is the impact on the customer of the bug?
          Considerable. When the container gets into inconsistent state, there is not indication of why it happened. The only workaround is to restart the appserver.
        • How likely is it that a customer will see the bug and how serious is the bug?
          Very likely.

        Is it a regression? Does it meet other bug fix criteria (security, performance, etc.)?
        Yes. from 2.x

        • What is the cost/risk of fixing the bug?
          The fix is already implemented and tested in local workspace.
        • How risky is the fix? How much work is the fix? Is the fix complicated?
          Low risk. I have already tested deployment with various packaging scenarios to ensure that there is no regression
        • Is there an impact on documentation or message strings?
          No.
        • Which tests should QA (re)run to verify the fix did not destabilize GlassFish?
          Standard persistence test suite against any database.
        • Which is the targeted build of 3.1.2 for this fix?
          Next one.
        Show
        Mitesh Meswani added a comment - What is the impact on the customer of the bug? Considerable. When the container gets into inconsistent state, there is not indication of why it happened. The only workaround is to restart the appserver. How likely is it that a customer will see the bug and how serious is the bug? Very likely. Is it a regression? Does it meet other bug fix criteria (security, performance, etc.)? Yes. from 2.x What is the cost/risk of fixing the bug? The fix is already implemented and tested in local workspace. How risky is the fix? How much work is the fix? Is the fix complicated? Low risk. I have already tested deployment with various packaging scenarios to ensure that there is no regression Is there an impact on documentation or message strings? No. Which tests should QA (re)run to verify the fix did not destabilize GlassFish? Standard persistence test suite against any database. Which is the targeted build of 3.1.2 for this fix? Next one.
        Hide
        Mitesh Meswani added a comment -

        Persistence related changes committed as rev 51719 in 3.1.2 branch and rev 51720 in trunk

        Show
        Mitesh Meswani added a comment - Persistence related changes committed as rev 51719 in 3.1.2 branch and rev 51720 in trunk

          People

          • Assignee:
            Mitesh Meswani
            Reporter:
            Mitesh Meswani
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: