[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-707) NullPointer when changing order of the rules
by Mario Fusco (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Mario Fusco commented on DROOLS-707:
------------------------------------
The Propagation class is a new annotation I added today in droolsjbpm-knowledge. Update that project if you want to build master from the sources.
I'll give a look at your reproduce asap.
Thanks,
Mario
> NullPointer when changing order of the rules
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-707
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-707
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 5.5.0.Final, 5.6.0.Final, 6.0.0.Final, 6.0.1.Final, 6.1.0.Final, 6.2.0.CR4
> Reporter: Francesco Peloi
> Assignee: Mario Fusco
> Fix For: 6.2.0.Final
>
>
> Hi there,
> we are having some serious issues with some rules, they are throwing a NullPointerException and we don't understand why. I have tried to narrow down the problem to the smallest rule possible, now this rule doesn't really make much sense put like this but the real rule is more complex with more constraints. At the end the result is the same: a NPE.
> I have tried it with many Drools versions from 5.x to latest 6.3.0-SNAPSHOT.
> I tested this in isolation with the minimum amount of code possible, and attached it as well if someone wants to try it quickly.
> Note that if line 2 of the when:
> $a : Integer()
> is moved as first line, the rule runs ok.
> Please find the reproducer here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/drools-usage/-oNqu3l4cqE
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-707) NullPointer when changing order of the rules
by Francesco Peloi (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Francesco Peloi edited comment on DROOLS-707 at 2/24/15 12:50 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi [~mfusco],
I found other 2 cases where I get strange behavior with variables and order of the rule lines.
I created a pull request with a few cases in the 6.1.x branch, they weren't working on master where I was getting another weird exception (The import org.kie.api.definition.rule.Propagation cannot be resolved - maybe something has changed).
If I remember correctly, the line that throws a NPE is exactly the same as the problem you fixed already in this ticket.
was (Author: eweriuer):
Hi [~mfusco],
I found other 2 cases where I get strange behavior with variables and order of the rule lines.
I created a pull request with a few cases in the 6.1.x branch, they weren't working on master where I was getting another weird exception error (The import org.kie.api.definition.rule.Propagation cannot be resolved - maybe something has changed).
If I remember correctly, the line that throws a NPE is exactly the same as the problem you fixed already in this ticket.
> NullPointer when changing order of the rules
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-707
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-707
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 5.5.0.Final, 5.6.0.Final, 6.0.0.Final, 6.0.1.Final, 6.1.0.Final, 6.2.0.CR4
> Reporter: Francesco Peloi
> Assignee: Mario Fusco
> Fix For: 6.2.0.Final
>
>
> Hi there,
> we are having some serious issues with some rules, they are throwing a NullPointerException and we don't understand why. I have tried to narrow down the problem to the smallest rule possible, now this rule doesn't really make much sense put like this but the real rule is more complex with more constraints. At the end the result is the same: a NPE.
> I have tried it with many Drools versions from 5.x to latest 6.3.0-SNAPSHOT.
> I tested this in isolation with the minimum amount of code possible, and attached it as well if someone wants to try it quickly.
> Note that if line 2 of the when:
> $a : Integer()
> is moved as first line, the rule runs ok.
> Please find the reproducer here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/drools-usage/-oNqu3l4cqE
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-707) NullPointer when changing order of the rules
by Francesco Peloi (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Francesco Peloi edited comment on DROOLS-707 at 2/24/15 12:50 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi [~mfusco],
I found other 2 cases where I get strange behavior with variables and order of the rule lines.
I created a pull request with a few cases in the 6.1.x branch, they weren't working on master where I was getting another weird exception error (The import org.kie.api.definition.rule.Propagation cannot be resolved - maybe something has changed).
If I remember correctly, the line that throws a NPE is exactly the same as the problem you fixed already in this ticket.
was (Author: eweriuer):
Hi [~mfusco],
I found other 2 cases where I get strange behavior with variables and order of the rule lines.
I created a pull request with a few cases in the 6.1.x branch, they weren't working on master where I was getting another weird exception error (The import org.kie.api.definition.rule.Propagation cannot be resolved - maybe something has changed).
If I remember correctly, the line that throws a NPE is exactly the same as the problem you fixed already.
> NullPointer when changing order of the rules
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-707
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-707
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 5.5.0.Final, 5.6.0.Final, 6.0.0.Final, 6.0.1.Final, 6.1.0.Final, 6.2.0.CR4
> Reporter: Francesco Peloi
> Assignee: Mario Fusco
> Fix For: 6.2.0.Final
>
>
> Hi there,
> we are having some serious issues with some rules, they are throwing a NullPointerException and we don't understand why. I have tried to narrow down the problem to the smallest rule possible, now this rule doesn't really make much sense put like this but the real rule is more complex with more constraints. At the end the result is the same: a NPE.
> I have tried it with many Drools versions from 5.x to latest 6.3.0-SNAPSHOT.
> I tested this in isolation with the minimum amount of code possible, and attached it as well if someone wants to try it quickly.
> Note that if line 2 of the when:
> $a : Integer()
> is moved as first line, the rule runs ok.
> Please find the reproducer here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/drools-usage/-oNqu3l4cqE
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-707) NullPointer when changing order of the rules
by Francesco Peloi (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Francesco Peloi commented on DROOLS-707:
----------------------------------------
Hi [~mfusco],
I found other 2 cases where I get strange behavior with variables and order of the rule lines.
I created a pull request with a few cases in the 6.1.x branch, they weren't working on master where I was getting another weird exception error (The import org.kie.api.definition.rule.Propagation cannot be resolved - maybe something has changed).
If I remember correctly, the line that throws a NPE is exactly the same as the problem you fixed already.
> NullPointer when changing order of the rules
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-707
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-707
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 5.5.0.Final, 5.6.0.Final, 6.0.0.Final, 6.0.1.Final, 6.1.0.Final, 6.2.0.CR4
> Reporter: Francesco Peloi
> Assignee: Mario Fusco
> Fix For: 6.2.0.Final
>
>
> Hi there,
> we are having some serious issues with some rules, they are throwing a NullPointerException and we don't understand why. I have tried to narrow down the problem to the smallest rule possible, now this rule doesn't really make much sense put like this but the real rule is more complex with more constraints. At the end the result is the same: a NPE.
> I have tried it with many Drools versions from 5.x to latest 6.3.0-SNAPSHOT.
> I tested this in isolation with the minimum amount of code possible, and attached it as well if someone wants to try it quickly.
> Note that if line 2 of the when:
> $a : Integer()
> is moved as first line, the rule runs ok.
> Please find the reproducer here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/drools-usage/-oNqu3l4cqE
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1876) MERGE3 : Strange number and content of subgroups
by Bela Ban (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1876?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Bela Ban edited comment on JGRP-1876 at 2/24/15 11:24 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------
{{MergeTest4.testJGRP_1876_Dan2()}} reproduces the issue described by Dan in his comment dated Jan 13:
{noformat}
S: [S]
T: [T]
U,V: [U,V]
{noformat}
The merge leaders gets INFO messages from
{noformat}
S: [S|10]
T: [T|10]
V: [U|10]
{noformat}
This results in a {{MergeView}} that excludes U:
{noformat}
S: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
T: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
U: [U|11] (2) [U, V]
V: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
{noformat}
The next MergeView will correct this, but we should strive to provide the correct MergeView the first time around.
was (Author: belaban):
{{MergeTest4.testJGRP_1876_Dan2()}} reproduces the issue described by Dan in his comment dated Jan 13:
* S: [S]
* T: [T]
* U,V: [U,V]
The merge leaders gets INFO messages from
* S: [S|10]
* T: [T|10]
* V: [U|10]
This results in a {{MergeView}} that excludes U:
{noformat}
S: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
T: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
U: [U|11] (2) [U, V]
V: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
{noformat}
The next MergeView will correct this, but we should strive to provide the correct MergeView the first time around.
> MERGE3 : Strange number and content of subgroups
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1876
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1876
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.4.2
> Reporter: Karim AMMOUS
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.6.3
>
> Attachments: 4Subgroups.zip, ChannelCreator.java, DkeJgrpAddress.java, JGRP-1876-1.pdf, karim-logs-files.zip, MergeTest4.java, MergeViewWith210Subgroups.log, SplitMergeTest.java, views.txt
>
>
> Using JGroups 3.4.2, a split occurred and a merge was processed successfully but number of subgroups is wrong (210 instead of 2).
> The final mergeView is correct and contains 210 members.
> Here is an extract of subviews:
> {code}
> INFO | Incoming-18,cluster,term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F] | [MyMembershipListener.java:126] | (middleware) | MergeView view ID = [serv-ZM2BU35940-58033:vt-14:192.168.55.55:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|172]
> 210 subgroups
> [....
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [term-ETJ104215245-11092:host:192.168.56.72:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU38960-6907:asb:192.168.55.52:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|171] (1) [term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU47533-55240:vt-14:192.168.55.57:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU35943-49435:asb:192.168.55.51:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> ....]
> {code}
> II wasn't able to reproduce that with a simple program. But I observed that merge was preceded by an ifdown/ifup on host 192.168.56.6. That member lost all others members, but it still present in their view.
> Example:
> {code}
> {A, B, C} => {A, B, C} and {C} => {A, B, C}
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1876) MERGE3 : Strange number and content of subgroups
by Bela Ban (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1876?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Bela Ban edited comment on JGRP-1876 at 2/24/15 11:23 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------
{{MergeTest4.testJGRP_1876_Dan2()}} reproduces the issue described by Dan in his comment dated Jan 13:
* S: [S]
* T: [T]
* U,V: [U,V]
The merge leaders gets INFO messages from
* S: [S|10]
* T: [T|10]
* V: [U|10]
This results in a {{MergeView}} that excludes U:
{noformat}
S: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
T: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
U: [U|11] (2) [U, V]
V: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
{noformat}
The next MergeView will correct this, but we should strive to provide the correct MergeView the first time around.
was (Author: belaban):
{{MergeTest4.testJGRP_1876_Dan2()}} reproduces the issue described by Dan in his comment dated Jan 13:
* S: [S]
* T: [T]
* U,V: [U,V]
The merge leaders gets INFO messages from
* S: [S|10]
* T: [T|10]
* V: [U|10]
This results in a {{MergeView}} that excludes U:
* S: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
* T: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
* U: [U|11] (2) [U, V]
* V: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
The next MergeView will correct this, but we should strive to provide the correct MergeView the first time around.
> MERGE3 : Strange number and content of subgroups
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1876
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1876
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.4.2
> Reporter: Karim AMMOUS
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.6.3
>
> Attachments: 4Subgroups.zip, ChannelCreator.java, DkeJgrpAddress.java, JGRP-1876-1.pdf, karim-logs-files.zip, MergeTest4.java, MergeViewWith210Subgroups.log, SplitMergeTest.java, views.txt
>
>
> Using JGroups 3.4.2, a split occurred and a merge was processed successfully but number of subgroups is wrong (210 instead of 2).
> The final mergeView is correct and contains 210 members.
> Here is an extract of subviews:
> {code}
> INFO | Incoming-18,cluster,term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F] | [MyMembershipListener.java:126] | (middleware) | MergeView view ID = [serv-ZM2BU35940-58033:vt-14:192.168.55.55:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|172]
> 210 subgroups
> [....
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [term-ETJ104215245-11092:host:192.168.56.72:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU38960-6907:asb:192.168.55.52:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|171] (1) [term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU47533-55240:vt-14:192.168.55.57:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU35943-49435:asb:192.168.55.51:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> ....]
> {code}
> II wasn't able to reproduce that with a simple program. But I observed that merge was preceded by an ifdown/ifup on host 192.168.56.6. That member lost all others members, but it still present in their view.
> Example:
> {code}
> {A, B, C} => {A, B, C} and {C} => {A, B, C}
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1876) MERGE3 : Strange number and content of subgroups
by Bela Ban (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1876?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Bela Ban commented on JGRP-1876:
--------------------------------
{{MergeTest4.testJGRP_1876_Dan2()}} reproduces the issue described by Dan in his comment dated Jan 13:
* S: [S]
* T: [T]
* U,V: [U,V]
The merge leaders gets INFO messages from
* S: [S|10]
* T: [T|10]
* V: [U|10]
This results in a {{MergeView}} that excludes U:
* S: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
* T: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
* U: [U|11] (2) [U, V]
* V: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
The next MergeView will correct this, but we should strive to provide the correct MergeView the first time around.
> MERGE3 : Strange number and content of subgroups
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1876
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1876
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.4.2
> Reporter: Karim AMMOUS
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.6.3
>
> Attachments: 4Subgroups.zip, ChannelCreator.java, DkeJgrpAddress.java, JGRP-1876-1.pdf, karim-logs-files.zip, MergeTest4.java, MergeViewWith210Subgroups.log, SplitMergeTest.java, views.txt
>
>
> Using JGroups 3.4.2, a split occurred and a merge was processed successfully but number of subgroups is wrong (210 instead of 2).
> The final mergeView is correct and contains 210 members.
> Here is an extract of subviews:
> {code}
> INFO | Incoming-18,cluster,term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F] | [MyMembershipListener.java:126] | (middleware) | MergeView view ID = [serv-ZM2BU35940-58033:vt-14:192.168.55.55:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|172]
> 210 subgroups
> [....
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [term-ETJ104215245-11092:host:192.168.56.72:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU38960-6907:asb:192.168.55.52:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|171] (1) [term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU47533-55240:vt-14:192.168.55.57:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> [term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1) [serv-ZM2BU35943-49435:asb:192.168.55.51:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
> ....]
> {code}
> II wasn't able to reproduce that with a simple program. But I observed that merge was preceded by an ifdown/ifup on host 192.168.56.6. That member lost all others members, but it still present in their view.
> Example:
> {code}
> {A, B, C} => {A, B, C} and {C} => {A, B, C}
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-4384) ContextService (JSR236): transactional context always suspended
by Tomaz Cerar (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-4384?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Tomaz Cerar reassigned WFLY-4384:
---------------------------------
Assignee: Eduardo Martins (was: Jason Greene)
> ContextService (JSR236): transactional context always suspended
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-4384
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-4384
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: EE
> Reporter: Maxim Frolov
> Assignee: Eduardo Martins
> Priority: Critical
>
> According to §3.3.5 of JSR-236 specification:
> ??By using an execution property when creating the contextual proxy object, application components can choose to not suspend the transactional context on the thread ...??
> Given the following EJB and Task:
> {code:java}
> @WebService(serviceName = "Jsr236WebService")
> @Stateless
> public class Jsr236WebService {
> @Inject Jsr236ManagedTask jsr236ManagedTask;
> @Resource ManagedExecutorService executor;
> @Resource ContextService contextService;
>
> @WebMethod(operationName = "hello")
> public String hello(@WebParam(name = "name") String txt) {
> Map<String, String> execProps = new HashMap<>();
> execProps.put(ManagedTask.TRANSACTION, ManagedTask.USE_TRANSACTION_OF_EXECUTION_THREAD);
> Future<String> future = executor.submit(
> contextService.createContextualProxy(jsr236ManagedTask, execProps, Callable.class));
> try {
> return future.get();
> } catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
> throw new RuntimeException(e);
> }
> }
> }
> {code}
> {code:java}
> @Dependent
> @Transactional(Transactional.TxType.MANDATORY)
> public class Jsr236ManagedTask implements Callable<String>, ManagedTask {
> @Override
> public String call() {
> return "called";
> }
> @Override
> public Map<String, String> getExecutionProperties() {
> Map<String, String> execProps = new HashMap<>();
> execProps.put(ManagedTask.TRANSACTION, ManagedTask.USE_TRANSACTION_OF_EXECUTION_THREAD);
> return execProps;
> }
> }
> {code}
> When the {{call()}} Method of the task is called the following exception occurs:
> {noformat}
> javax.transaction.TransactionalException: ARJUNA016110: Transaction is required for invocation
> {noformat}
> See maven test project [https://github.com/wrungel/bugs/tree/master/jsr236-test] on GitHub.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-4384) ContextService (JSR236): transactional context always suspended
by Tomaz Cerar (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-4384?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Tomaz Cerar updated WFLY-4384:
------------------------------
Component/s: EE
> ContextService (JSR236): transactional context always suspended
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-4384
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-4384
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: EE
> Reporter: Maxim Frolov
> Assignee: Jason Greene
> Priority: Critical
>
> According to §3.3.5 of JSR-236 specification:
> ??By using an execution property when creating the contextual proxy object, application components can choose to not suspend the transactional context on the thread ...??
> Given the following EJB and Task:
> {code:java}
> @WebService(serviceName = "Jsr236WebService")
> @Stateless
> public class Jsr236WebService {
> @Inject Jsr236ManagedTask jsr236ManagedTask;
> @Resource ManagedExecutorService executor;
> @Resource ContextService contextService;
>
> @WebMethod(operationName = "hello")
> public String hello(@WebParam(name = "name") String txt) {
> Map<String, String> execProps = new HashMap<>();
> execProps.put(ManagedTask.TRANSACTION, ManagedTask.USE_TRANSACTION_OF_EXECUTION_THREAD);
> Future<String> future = executor.submit(
> contextService.createContextualProxy(jsr236ManagedTask, execProps, Callable.class));
> try {
> return future.get();
> } catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
> throw new RuntimeException(e);
> }
> }
> }
> {code}
> {code:java}
> @Dependent
> @Transactional(Transactional.TxType.MANDATORY)
> public class Jsr236ManagedTask implements Callable<String>, ManagedTask {
> @Override
> public String call() {
> return "called";
> }
> @Override
> public Map<String, String> getExecutionProperties() {
> Map<String, String> execProps = new HashMap<>();
> execProps.put(ManagedTask.TRANSACTION, ManagedTask.USE_TRANSACTION_OF_EXECUTION_THREAD);
> return execProps;
> }
> }
> {code}
> When the {{call()}} Method of the task is called the following exception occurs:
> {noformat}
> javax.transaction.TransactionalException: ARJUNA016110: Transaction is required for invocation
> {noformat}
> See maven test project [https://github.com/wrungel/bugs/tree/master/jsr236-test] on GitHub.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)
9 years, 2 months