|
There is a problem with the parameter binding of dynamic filter parameters in case you use a dynamic filter definition on a OneToMany child collection. The order in which the parameters get bound does not necessarily match the order in which the query defined them.
I am quite new to this so I try to explain as best as I can.
I have a root entity with a filter definition for the deletion timestamp column, and I also apply this filter on its child entities for their deletion timestamp columns:
@Entity
@Table( name = "`ArticleRevision`" )
@FilterDefs( { @FilterDef( name = "aliveOnly", parameters = { @ParamDef( name = "aliveTimestamp", type = "timestamp" ) }, defaultCondition = "`DeletionTimestamp` = :aliveTimestamp" ) } )
@Filters( { @Filter( name = "aliveOnly", condition = "`DeletionTimestamp` = :aliveTimestamp" ) } )
public class ArticleRevision
{
@Column( name = "`ArticleID`" )
private Long articleId = null;
@Column( name = "`DeletionTimestamp`" )
protected Timestamp deletionTimestamp;
@OneToMany( mappedBy = "articleRevision", cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY )
@Filter( name = "aliveOnly" )
private Set< ArticleTrading > articleTradings = new HashSet< ArticleTrading >();
}
This is one of the child entites:
@Entity
@Table( name = "`ArticleTrading`" )
public class ArticleTrading
{
@ManyToOne( fetch = FetchType.LAZY )
@JoinColumn( name = "`ArticleRevisionID`", nullable = false )
private ArticleRevision articleRevision = null;
@Column( name = "`PartyID`" )
private long partyId = 0;
@Column( name = "`Classifier`" )
private String classifier = null;
@Column( name = "`DeletionTimestamp`" )
protected Timestamp deletionTimestamp;
}
Now if I enable the filter in the session:
Filter enableFilter = session.enableFilter( "aliveOnly" );
enableFilter.setParameter( "aliveTimestamp", Timestamp.valueOf( "9999-12-31 00:00:00" ) );
enableFilter.validate();
and execute the following query:
select a_root.articleId
from ArticleRevision as a_root
left join a_root.articleTradings as al_0
with ( (al_0.partyId = :p_0) and (al_0.classifier = :p_1) )
the query will result in the following SQL:
[SQL]
select
articlerev0_."ArticleID" as col_0_0_
from
"ArticleRevision" articlerev0_
left outer join
"ArticleTrading" articletra1_
on articlerev0_."ID"=articletra1_."ArticleRevisionID"
and articletra1_."DeletionTimestamp" = ?
and (
articletra1_."PartyID"=?
and articletra1_."Classifier"=?
)
where
articlerev0_."DeletionTimestamp" = ?
Now watch how the parameters get bound in the wrong order (the dynamic filter is parameter 3 although it should be 1):
[BasicBinder] binding parameter [1] as [BIGINT] - 1
[BasicBinder] binding parameter [2] as [VARCHAR] - Classifier
[BasicBinder] binding parameter [3] as [TIMESTAMP] - 9999-12-31 00:00:00.0
[BasicBinder] binding parameter [4] as [TIMESTAMP] - 9999-12-31 00:00:00.0
I have debugged the code and I found out that although method JoinProcessor#processDynamicFilterParameters() adds the dynamic filter parameters last to the current JOIN, the SQL statement generation happens in the opposite order in method JoinSequence#toJoinFragment() and puts it first:
for ( Join join: joins ) {
String on = join.getAssociationType().getOnCondition( join.getAlias(), factory, enabledFilters );
That is why I would suggest that the easiest bugfix for this is just putting the filter condition in the JoinSequence#toJoinFragment() method to the end as well:
for ( Join join: joins ) {
String condition = "";
if ( withClauseFragment != null && !isManyToManyRoot( join.joinable )) {
condition += " and " + withClauseFragment;
}
String on = join.getAssociationType().getOnCondition( join.getAlias(), factory, enabledFilters );
if ( last != null &&
isManyToManyRoot( last ) &&
( ( QueryableCollection ) last ).getElementType() == join.getAssociationType() ) {
String manyToManyFilter = ( ( QueryableCollection ) last )
.getManyToManyFilterFragment( join.getAlias(), enabledFilters );
condition += "".equals( manyToManyFilter )
? on
: "".equals( on )
? manyToManyFilter
: on + " and " + manyToManyFilter;
}
else {
condition += on;
}
joinFragment.addJoin(
join.getJoinable().getTableName(),
join.getAlias(),
join.getLHSColumns(),
JoinHelper.getRHSColumnNames( join.getAssociationType(), factory ),
join.joinType,
condition
);
if (includeExtraJoins) { addExtraJoins( joinFragment, join.getAlias(), join.getJoinable(), join.joinType == JoinType.INNER_JOIN );
}
last = join.getJoinable();
}
This is a blocker because there is no workaround for that case.
|
