I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not defined
in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the subclasses extending
it.
I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify any @Id
annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a subclass of
the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is correct.
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right access
type for a mapped super class:
https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 .
Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole placement of
the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might not be
defined (this is the OP's case).
I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but the
OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access type of
an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping annotations
on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the
entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type".
I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations placement
if there is no @Id annotation.
If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :).
Thoughts?
--
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev