You should actually be checking for more states than just ACTIVE (e.g. it could be MARKED_ROLLBACK).

Anything other than UNKOWN or NO_TRANSACTION I think.

Stuart

On 29/11/2011, at 8:15 AM, Nicklas Karlsson wrote:

Sure, it's just something like  http://pastebin.com/7ZBMcYkG 

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak@redhat.com> wrote:

Would you mind sharing that with us Nick? :)

On 29/11/11 07:08, Nicklas Karlsson wrote:

Like I commented in the JIRA, I think I also had this issue and Stuart recommended this simple rollback filter which I currently use and appear to have solved the issue.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak@redhat.com> wrote:

So it looks like the filter idea is what Jason and Lincoln have come up
with also.  Jason, how long would this take to implement?

On 29/11/11 07:02, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> This looks like a transaction leak, not sure where from.
>
> EE app servers are supposed to have a mechanism in place to detect and rollback leaking transactions from a web request. AS 7.0 was missing this, however I added it for the 7.1 Beta release.
>
> For 7.0 I think the only real solution is to either figure out where the TX leak is coming from, or write a filter that detects transaction leaks and rolls back.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> On 29/11/2011, at 7:54 AM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
>
>> Has someone consulted Stuart about this issue?
>>
>> On 29/11/11 03:29, Jason Porter wrote:
>>> That may work. If the steps are relatively small to recreate it.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 28, 2011, at 10:16, Cody Lerum<cody.lerum@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't have a test for it, and I don't think I will have the time to
>>>> learn how to repo it in arq anytime soon. I can branch my seam-crm
>>>> project to create an easy repo if someone can craft a test based on
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> -C
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jason Porter<lightguard.jp@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>> Cody, do you have an arquillian test that reproduces this? This is a pretty big one and I don't want to say this is fixed without a test demonstrating this is fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 28, 2011, at 9:24, Cody Lerum<cody.lerum@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW I think we should hold off on a CR1 release until
>>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SEAM-99 can be resolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Shane Bryzak<sbryzak@redhat.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are gearing up release Seam 3.1.0.CR1 in a couple of days.  Currently we
>>>>>>> have 56 open issues [1], I'll probably be bumping many of these but if you
>>>>>>> are able to help out by fixing one or two of these then it would be much
>>>>>>> appreciated.  I'll probably start the release on Wednesday evening my time
>>>>>>> (+10GMT), so we'll need to have a code freeze by then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Shane
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=12314291
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> seam-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list
>>>>>> seam-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> seam-dev mailing list
>> seam-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

--
---
Nik

--
---
Nik