October 2018 - jbossts-issues - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3065) Check that starting LRA's via CDI and API in the same method works

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3065?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Michael Musgrove updated JBTM-3065: ----------------------------------- Description: The LRA spec supports starting LRA's via a Java API or via Java annotations. If the two approaches are used together in the same resource method then the LRA started via the API should be nested inside the one started by an annotation. If the annotated class also contains @Compensate and @Complete annotations (which means that the resource should join the outer LRA) and the resource method Joins the nested LRA then the resource should receive callbacks for both the outer and nested LRA's. The following code shows an example: {code} @PUT @LRA(LRA.Type.REQUIRES_NEW) // starts a new LRA on entry public String doInTransaction() { URL lraId = lraClient.startLRA(...); // starts a nested LRA lraClient.join(...) // join the nested LRA lraClient.closeLRA(lraId); // close the nested LRA // assert that the nested callbacks were invoked // assert that the callbacks for the outer LRA have not been called yet } {code} Similar comments apply if the resource joins via the LRAManagement API: {code} @Inject private LRAManagement lraManagement; public String doInTransaction() { lraManagement.joinLRA(this, lraId, 0L, TimeUnit.SECONDS); // etc {code} was: The LRA spec supports starting LRA's via a Java API or via Java annotations. If the two approaches are used together in the same resource method then the LRA started via the API should be nested inside the one started by an annotation. If the annotated class also contains @Compensate and @Complete annotations (which means that the resource should join the outer LRA) and the resource method Joins the nested LRA then the resource should receive callbacks for both the outer and nested LRA's. The following code shows an example: {code} @PUT @LRA(LRA.Type.REQUIRES_NEW) // starts a new LRA on entry public String doInTransaction() { URL lraId = lraClient.startLRA(...); // starts a nested LRA lraClient.join(...) // join the nested LRA lraClient.closeLRA(lraId); // close the nested LRA } {code} Similar comments apply if the resource joins via the LRAManagement API: {code} @Inject private LRAManagement lraManagement; public String doInTransaction() { lraManagement.joinLRA(this, lraId, 0L, TimeUnit.SECONDS); // etc {code} > Check that starting LRA's via CDI and API in the same method works > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: JBTM-3065 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3065 > Project: JBoss Transaction Manager > Issue Type: Bug > Components: LRA > Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final > Reporter: Michael Musgrove > Assignee: Michael Musgrove > Priority: Major > Fix For: 5.next > > > The LRA spec supports starting LRA's via a Java API or via Java annotations. If the two approaches are used together in the same resource method then the LRA started via the API should be nested inside the one started by an annotation. > If the annotated class also contains @Compensate and @Complete annotations (which means that the resource should join the outer LRA) and the resource method Joins the nested LRA then the resource should receive callbacks for both the outer and nested LRA's. > The following code shows an example: > {code} > @PUT > @LRA(LRA.Type.REQUIRES_NEW) // starts a new LRA on entry > public String doInTransaction() { > URL lraId = lraClient.startLRA(...); // starts a nested LRA > lraClient.join(...) // join the nested LRA > lraClient.closeLRA(lraId); // close the nested LRA > // assert that the nested callbacks were invoked > // assert that the callbacks for the outer LRA have not been called yet > } > {code} > Similar comments apply if the resource joins via the LRAManagement API: > {code} > @Inject > private LRAManagement lraManagement; > public String doInTransaction() { > lraManagement.joinLRA(this, lraId, 0L, TimeUnit.SECONDS); > // etc > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3065) Check that starting LRA's via CDI and API in the same method works

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

Michael Musgrove created JBTM-3065: -------------------------------------- Summary: Check that starting LRA's via CDI and API in the same method works Key: JBTM-3065 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3065 Project: JBoss Transaction Manager Issue Type: Bug Components: LRA Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final Reporter: Michael Musgrove Assignee: Michael Musgrove Fix For: 5.next The LRA spec supports starting LRA's via a Java API or via Java annotations. If the two approaches are used together in the same resource method then the LRA started via the API should be nested inside the one started by an annotation. If the annotated class also contains @Compensate and @Complete annotations (which means that the resource should join the outer LRA) and the resource method Joins the nested LRA then the resource should receive callbacks for both the outer and nested LRA's. The following code shows an example: {code} @PUT @LRA(LRA.Type.REQUIRES_NEW) // starts a new LRA on entry public String doInTransaction() { URL lraId = lraClient.startLRA(...); // starts a nested LRA lraClient.join(...) // join the nested LRA lraClient.closeLRA(lraId); // close the nested LRA } {code} Similar comments apply if the resource joins via the LRAManagement API: {code} @Inject private LRAManagement lraManagement; public String doInTransaction() { lraManagement.joinLRA(this, lraId, 0L, TimeUnit.SECONDS); // etc {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3058) Add STM tests that verify nested transactions are closed

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3058?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Michael Musgrove updated JBTM-3058: ----------------------------------- Component/s: Testing > Add STM tests that verify nested transactions are closed > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JBTM-3058 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3058 > Project: JBoss Transaction Manager > Issue Type: Bug > Components: STM, Testing > Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final > Reporter: Michael Musgrove > Assignee: Michael Musgrove > Priority: Optional > Fix For: 5.next > > > STM implements "Closed Nested Transactions" as opposed to Flattened or Open. We need a test which demonstrates that nested transactions follow the closed model. > Furthermore, STM implementations can differ in how transactional code and non-transactional code are isolated from each other (with respect to visibility of updates during a transaction). Add a test that verifies that we use the "Weak Isolation" model. > Details of the expected behaviour is covered in the Sept 2018 jbossts blog entitled "[Tips on how to evaluate STM implementations|http://example.com|https://jbossts.blogspot.com/2018/09/t...]" -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3058) Add STM tests that verify nested transactions are closed

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3058?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Issue was automatically transitioned when Michael Musgrove created pull request #1371 in GitHub ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Pull Request Sent (was: Open) > Add STM tests that verify nested transactions are closed > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JBTM-3058 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3058 > Project: JBoss Transaction Manager > Issue Type: Bug > Components: STM > Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final > Reporter: Michael Musgrove > Assignee: Michael Musgrove > Priority: Optional > Fix For: 5.next > > > STM implements "Closed Nested Transactions" as opposed to Flattened or Open. We need a test which demonstrates that nested transactions follow the closed model. > Furthermore, STM implementations can differ in how transactional code and non-transactional code are isolated from each other (with respect to visibility of updates during a transaction). Add a test that verifies that we use the "Weak Isolation" model. > Details of the expected behaviour is covered in the Sept 2018 jbossts blog entitled "[Tips on how to evaluate STM implementations|http://example.com|https://jbossts.blogspot.com/2018/09/t...]" -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3062) Include a test for LRA context propagation across a "non-LRA aware" service

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3062?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Issue was automatically transitioned when Michael Musgrove created pull request #1370 in GitHub ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Pull Request Sent (was: Open) > Include a test for LRA context propagation across a "non-LRA aware" service > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JBTM-3062 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3062 > Project: JBoss Transaction Manager > Issue Type: Bug > Components: LRA > Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final > Reporter: Michael Musgrove > Assignee: Michael Musgrove > Priority: Major > Fix For: 5.next > > > If a microservice A that wants to participate in an LRA and calls microservice B (which does not have specific LRA behaviour) and service A in turn calls microservice C (which does have specific LRA behaviour), then B should not need to be annotated with @LRA. A test is needed for this behaviour. > This issue relates to https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-lra/issues/7 -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3064) After a crash active LRA's are left in a limbo state

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3064?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Issue was automatically transitioned when Michael Musgrove created pull request #1369 in GitHub ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Pull Request Sent (was: Open) > After a crash active LRA's are left in a limbo state > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JBTM-3064 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3064 > Project: JBoss Transaction Manager > Issue Type: Bug > Components: LRA > Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final > Reporter: Michael Musgrove > Assignee: Michael Musgrove > Priority: Major > Fix For: 5.next > > > If an LRA coordinator crashes with active LRA's (ie ones that have not yet been asked to finish) then when the coordinator is restarted they do not appear in the coordinators list so they cannot be ended. > The fix is to ensure that the LRA periodic recovery module adds them back into the coordinators list of active LRA's. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3064) After a crash active LRA's are left in a limbo state

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

Michael Musgrove created JBTM-3064: -------------------------------------- Summary: After a crash active LRA's are left in a limbo state Key: JBTM-3064 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3064 Project: JBoss Transaction Manager Issue Type: Bug Components: LRA Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final Reporter: Michael Musgrove Assignee: Michael Musgrove Fix For: 5.next If an LRA coordinator crashes with active LRA's (ie ones that have not yet been asked to finish) then when the coordinator is restarted they do not appear in the coordinators list so they cannot be ended. The fix is to ensure that the LRA periodic recovery module adds them back into the coordinators list of active LRA's. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3060) Enhance quickstart readme with summary of all quickstarts while sorting them into categories

by Ondra Chaloupka (Jira)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3060?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Issue was automatically transitioned when Ondra Chaloupka created pull request #233 in GitHub --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Pull Request Sent (was: Open) > Enhance quickstart readme with summary of all quickstarts while sorting them into categories > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JBTM-3060 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3060 > Project: JBoss Transaction Manager > Issue Type: Enhancement > Reporter: Ondra Chaloupka > Assignee: Ondra Chaloupka > Priority: Minor > > The current README of the quickstart repository https://github.com/jbosstm/quickstart/blob/5.9.0.Final/README.md is a bit modest. Any stranger should get information about the overall structure of the repo while guiding him to find the quickstart he needs. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3063) Include a simple LRA quickstart showing difference between using a proxy and CDI

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3063?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Michael Musgrove updated JBTM-3063: ----------------------------------- Component/s: Demonstrator > Include a simple LRA quickstart showing difference between using a proxy and CDI > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JBTM-3063 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3063 > Project: JBoss Transaction Manager > Issue Type: Task > Components: Demonstrator, LRA > Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final > Reporter: Michael Musgrove > Assignee: Michael Musgrove > Priority: Optional > Fix For: 5.next > > > Participants can join LRAs either via [annotations|https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-lra/tree/master/api/s...] or via [a registration API|https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-lra/blob/master/api/src/main/...]. There should be a simple quickstart that demonstrates the difference between the two options. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JBTM-3063) Include a simple LRA quickstart showing difference between using a proxy and CDI

by Michael Musgrove (Jira)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3063?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Michael Musgrove updated JBTM-3063: ----------------------------------- Description: Participants can join LRAs either via [annotations|https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-lra/tree/master/api/s...] or via [a registration API|https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-lra/blob/master/api/src/main/...]. There should be a simple quickstart that demonstrates the difference between the two options. was: Participants can join LRAs either via annotations or via [a registration API|https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-lra/blob/master/api/src/main/...]. There should be a simple quickstart that demonstrates the difference between the two options. > Include a simple LRA quickstart showing difference between using a proxy and CDI > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JBTM-3063 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTM-3063 > Project: JBoss Transaction Manager > Issue Type: Task > Components: LRA > Affects Versions: 5.9.0.Final > Reporter: Michael Musgrove > Assignee: Michael Musgrove > Priority: Optional > Fix For: 5.next > > > Participants can join LRAs either via [annotations|https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-lra/tree/master/api/s...] or via [a registration API|https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-lra/blob/master/api/src/main/...]. There should be a simple quickstart that demonstrates the difference between the two options. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.12.1#712002)

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

jbossts-issues October 2018