Re: [hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass

yes also for the MappedSuperclass from: @MappedSuperclass public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity { @Column( name = "CODE") private String code; @Column( name = "NAME") private String name; } @Entity public class CatalogEntity extends AbstractCatalogEntity { @Id private Long id; } I obtained : @Generated(value = "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor") @StaticMetamodel(AbstractCatalogEntity.class) public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity_ { public static volatile SingularAttribute<AbstractCatalogEntity, String> code; public static volatile SingularAttribute<AbstractCatalogEntity, String> name; public static final String CODE = "code"; public static final String NAME = "name"; } @Generated(value = "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor") @StaticMetamodel(CatalogEntity.class) public abstract class CatalogEntity_ extends org.hibernate.userguide.model.AbstractCatalogEntity_ { public static volatile SingularAttribute<CatalogEntity, Long> id; public static final String ID = "id"; } On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:52, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > The generated model of the MappedSuperclass? > > Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero <andrea(a)hibernate.org&gt; > wrote: > >> 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&gt; >> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev