I have written a simple one record delete operation job in production as requested by user, in an AX instance while the other instance was stuck and open. However the record was not deleted.
try
{
ttsbegin;
select fotupdate tableBuffer where tableBuffer.recid == 5457735:
tableBuffer.delete();
ttscommit;
}
catch (exception::error)
{
info("Delete operation cancelled.");
}
tableBuffer's delete()function was overridden with code after super() to store the deleted record in another table.
I have done the same operation earlier successfully but no where with a scenario like one today(executed in one instance while the other instance was stuck).
Please suggest the possible reason as I find the record still persist both in sql server and AX.
Thank you.
If you're trying to prevent this from happening you can use pessimistic locking, where you obtain an update lock.
select pessimisticLock custTable
where custTable.AccountNum > '1000'
See these links for more info:
http://dev.goshoom.net/en/2011/10/pessimistic-locking/
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/emeadaxsupport/2009/07/08/about-locking-and-blocking-in-dynamics-ax-and-how-to-prevent-it/
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb190073.aspx
Related
I am trying to retrieve an entity immediately after it was saved. When debugging, I insert the entity, and check entities in google cloud console, I see it was created.
Key key = datastore.put(fullEntity)
After that, I continue with getting the entity with
datastore.get(key)
, but nothing is returned. How do I retrieve the saved entity within one request?
I've read this question Missing entities after insertion in Google Cloud DataStore
but I am only saving 1 entity, not tens of thousands like in that question
I am using Java 11 and google datastore (com.google.cloud.datastore. package)*
edit: added code how entity was created
public Key create.... {
// creating the entity inside a method
Transaction txn = this.datastore.newTransaction();
this.datastore = DatastoreOptions.getDefaultInstance().getService();
Builder<IncompleteKey> builder = newBuilder(entitykey);
setLongOrNull(builder, "price", purchase.getPrice());
setTimestampOrNull(builder, "validFrom", of(purchase.getValidFrom()));
setStringOrNull(builder, "invoiceNumber", purchase.getInvoiceNumber());
setBooleanOrNull(builder, "paidByCard", purchase.getPaidByCard());
newPurchase = entityToObject(this.datastore.put(builder.build()));
if (newPurchase != null && purchase.getItems() != null && purchase.getItems().size() > 0) {
for (Item item : purchase.getItems()) {
newPurchase.getItems().add(this.itemDao.save(item, newPurchase));
}
}
txn.commit();
return newPurchase.getKey();
}
after that, I am trying to retrieve the created entity
Key key = create(...);
Entity e = datastore.get(key)
I believe that there are a few issues with your code, but since we are unable to see the logic behind many of your methods, here comes my guess.
First of all, as you can see on the documentation, it's possible to save and retrieve an entity on the same code, so this is not a problem.
It seems like you are using a transaction which is right to perform multiple operations in a single action, but it doesn't seem like you are using it properly. This is because you only instantiate it and close it, but you don't put any operation on it. Furthermore, you are using this.datastore to save to the database, which completely neglects the transaction.
So you either save the object when it has all of its items already added or you create a transaction to save all the entities at once.
And I believe you should use the entityKey in order to fetch the added purchase afterwards, but don't mix it.
Also you are creating the Transaction object from this.datastore before instantiating the latter, but I assume this is a copy-paste error.
Since you're creating a transaction for this operation, the entity put should happen inside the transaction:
txn.put(builder.builder());
Also, the operations inside the loop where you add the purchase.getItems() to the newPurchase object should also be done in the context of the same transaction.
Let me know if this resolves the issue.
Cheers!
I am looking into how to show proper deletion error message in ember when there is an error coming back from the server. I looked at this topic and followed its suggestion:
Ember Data delete fails, how to rollback
My code is just like it, I return a 400 and my catch fires and logs, but nothing happens, when I pause it in the debugger though and try to rollback, I get Error: Assertion Failed: calling set on destroyed object
So A) I cannot rollback B) the error is eaten normally.
Here is my code
visitor.destroyRecord().then(function() {
console.log('SUCCESS');
}).catch(function(response) {
console.log('failed to remove', response);
visitor.rollback();
});
In case it's relevant, my model does have multiple relationships. What am I doing wrong? Ember-data version is 1.0.0.8 beta (previous one from the release a few days ago).
Thanks in advance.
EDIT
I discovered now that the record actually is restored currently inside the cache according to ember inspector, but the object will not reappear in the rendering of the visitors. I need some way to force it to reload into the template...
After destroyRecord, the record is gone and the deletion cannot be rolled back. The catch clause will just catch a server error. If you want the record back, and think it's still on the server, you'll have to reload it.
See the following comment on deleteRecord from the Ember Data source:
Marks the record as deleted but does not save it. You must call
`save` afterwards if you want to persist it. You might use this
method if you want to allow the user to still `rollback()` a
delete after it was made.
This implies that a rollback after save is not possible. There is also no sign anywhere I can see in the Ember Data code for somehow reverting a record deletion when the DELETE request fails.
In theory you might be able to muck with the isDeleted flag, or override various internal hooks, but I'd recommend against that unless you really know how things work.
Try reloading the model after the rollback. It will reload from the server but it was the only way around this that I could find.
visitor.destroyRecord().then(function() {
console.log('SUCCESS');
}).catch(function(response) {
console.log('failed to remove', response);
visitor.rollback();
visitor.reload().then(function(vis)
{
console.log('visitor.reload :: ' + JSON.stringify(vis));
});
});
Hope that helps.
I have a list of objects. They are JPA "Location" entities.
List<Location> locations;
I have a stateless EJB which loops thru the list and persists each one.
public void createLocations() {
List<Locations> locations = getListOfJPAManagedLocationEntities(); // I'm leaving out the details of this because it has nothing to do with the issue
for(Location location : locations) {
em.persist(location);
}
}
The code works fine. I do not have any problems.
However, the issue is: I want this to be an all-or-none transaction. Currently, each time thru the for loop, the persist() method will insert a new row into the database. Suppose I have 100 location objects and the 54th object has something wrong with it and an exception is thrown. There will be 53 records inserted into the database. What I want is: all of them must succeed before any of them succeed.
I'm using the latest & greatest version of Java EE6, EJB 3.x., and JPA 2. My persistence.xml uses JTA.
<persistence-unit name="myPersistenceUnit" transaction-type="JTA">
And I like having JTA.
I do not want to stop using JTA.
90% of the time JTA does exactly what I want it to do. But in this case, I doesn't seem to.
My understanding of JTA must be inaccurate because I always thought the beginning and end of the EJB method marked the boundaries of the JTA transaction (assume only one method is in-play as I've shown above). By my logic, the transaction would not end until the for-loop is done and the method returns, and then at that point the records are persisted.
I'm using the JTDS driver for SqlServer 2008. Perhaps the database doesn't want to insert a record without immediately committing it. The entity id is defined like this:
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
I've checked the spec., and it is not proper to call the various "UserTransaction" or "getTransaction()" methods in a JTA environment.
So what can I do?
Thanks.
If you use JTA and container managed transactions the default behavior for an session EJB method call is to run in a transaction (is like annotating it with #TransactionAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRED). That means that your code already runs in a transaction and will do what you expect: if an exception occurs at row 54 all previous inserted rows will be rolled-back. You can go ahead and test it by throwing yourself an exception at some point in the loop. Note that if you throw a checked exception declared by your method you can specify what the container should do when that exception occurs. You need to annotate the exception class with #ApplicationException (rollback=true).
if there was a duplicate entry while looping then it will continue without problems and when compiler reaches this line em.flush(); after the loop then it will throw an exception and rollback the transaction.
I'm using JBoss. Set your datasource in your standalone.xml or domain.xml to have
<datasource jta="true" ...>
Seems obvious, but I obviously set it wrong a long time ago and forgot about it.
I have a list of clients displayed through a ClientsController, its content is set to the Client.find() i.e. a RecordArray. User creates a new client through a ClientController whose content is set to Client.createRecord() in the route handler.
All works fine, however, while the user fills up the client's creation form, the clients list gets updated with the new client record, the one created in the route handler.
What's the best way to make RecordArray/Store only aware of the new record until the record is saved ?
UPDATE:
I ended up filtering the list based on the object status
{{#unless item.isNew}} Display the list {{/unless}}
UPDATE - 2
Here's an alternative way using filter, however the store has to be loaded first through the find method, App.Client.find().filter() doesn't seem to behave the way the two methods behave when called separately.
// Load the store first
App.Client.find();
var clients = App.Client.filter(function(client){
console.info(client.get('name') + ' ' + client.get('isNew'));
return !client.get('isNew');
});
controller.set('content',clients);
Few ways to go about this:
First, it's very messy for a route/state that deals with a list of clients to have to go out of its way to filter out junk left over from another unrelated state (i.e. the newClient state). I think it'd be way better for you to delete the junk record before leaving the newClient state, a la
if(client.get("isNew")) {
client.deleteRecord();
}
This will make sure it doesn't creep into the clientIndex route, or any other client list route that shouldn't have to put in extra work to filter out junk records. This code would ideally sit in the exit function of your newClient route so it can delete the record before the router transitions to another state that'll called Client.find()
But there's an even better, idiomatic solution: https://gist.github.com/4512271
(not sure which version of the router you're using but this is applicable to both)
The solution is to use transactions: instead of calling createRecord() directly on Client, call createRecord() on the transaction, so that the new client record is associated with that transaction, and then all you need to do is call transaction.rollback() in exit -- you don't even need to call isNew on anything, if the client record was saved, it obviously won't be rolled back.
This is also a useful pattern for editing records: 1) create a transaction on enter state and add the record to it, e.g.
enter: function(router, client) {
this.tx = router.get("store").transaction();
this.tx.add(client);
},
then the same sort of thing on the exit state:
exit: function(router, client) {
this.tx.rollback();
},
This way, if the user completes the form and submits to the server, rollback will correctly/conveniently do nothing. And if the user edits some of the form fields but then backs out halfway through, your exit callback will revert the unsaved changes, so that you don't end up with some dirty zombie client popping up in your clientIndex routes display it's unsaved changes.
Not 100% sure, could you try to set the content of ClientsController with
Client.filter(function(client){
return !client.get('isNew'));
});
EDIT: In order to make this work, you have to first load the store with Client.find().
In simple tests I can assert whether an object has been persisted by whether it's Id is no longer at it's default value. But delete an object and want to check whether the object and perhaps its children are really not in the database, the object Id's will still be at their saved values.
So I need to go to the db, and I would like a helper assertion to make the tests more readable, which is where the question comes in. I like the idea of using Load to save the db call, but I'm wondering if the ensuing exceptions can corrupt the session.
Below are how the two assertions would look, I think. Which would you use?
Cheers,
Berryl
Get
public static void AssertIsTransient<T>(this T instance, ISession session)
where T : Entity
{
if (instance.IsTransient()) return;
var found = session.Get<T>(instance.Id);
if (found != null) Assert.Fail(string.Format("{0} has persistent id '{1}'", instance, instance.Id));
}
Load
public static void AssertIsTransient<T>(this T instance, ISession session)
where T : Entity
{
if (instance.IsTransient()) return;
try
{
var found = session.Load<T>(instance.Id);
if (found != null) Assert.Fail(string.Format("{0} has persistent id '{1}'", instance, instance.Id));
}
catch (GenericADOException)
{
// nothing
}
catch (ObjectNotFoundException)
{
// nothing
}
}
edit
In either case I would be doing the fetch (Get or Load) in a new session, free of state from the session that did the save or delete.
I am trying to test cascade behavior, NOT to test NHib's ability to delete things, but maybe I am over thinking this one or there is a simpler way I haven't thought of.
Your code in the 'Load'-section will always hit Assert.Fail, but never throw an exception as Load<T> will return a proxy (with the Id-property set - or populated from the 1st level cache) without hitting the DB - ie. ISession.Load will only fail, if you access a property other than your Id-property on a deleted entity.
As for your 'Get'-section - I might be mistaken, but I think that if you delete an entity in a session - and later try to use .Get in the same session - you will get the one in 1st level cache - and again not return null.
See this post for the full explanation about .Load and .Get.
If you really need to see if it is in your DB - use a IStatelessSession - or launch a child-ISession (which will have an empty 1st level cache.
EDIT: I thought of a bigger problem - your entity will first be deleted when the transaction is committed (when the session is flushed per default) - so unless you manually flush your session (not recommended), you will still have it in your DB.
Hope this helps.