ProxyTransactionManagementConfiguration not eligible for auto-proxying

[Marco-Sulla]

Using Spring Boot 2.1.6.RELEASE, I get this warning

Bean 'org.springframework.transaction.annotation.ProxyTransactionManagementConfiguration' of type [org.springframework.transaction.annotation.ProxyTransactionManagementConfiguration$$EnhancerBySpringCGLIB$$efb8db88] is not eligible for getting processed by all BeanPostProcessors (for example: not eligible for auto-proxying)

I checked ProxyTransactionManagementConfiguration in your code and it does not contains any @Autowired. But the strange fact is that if I select the branch v2.1.6.RELEASE, no file ProxyTransactionManagementConfiguration exists.

[wilkinsona]

ProxyTransactionManagementConfiguration is part of Spring Framework. You can find its source code here.

The error that you are seeing indicates that something has caused ProxyTransactionManagementConfiguration to be initialised too early. Specifically, it has been initialised before all bean post-processors have been created. This prevents it from being post-processed.

If you would like us to spend some time investigating why that's happening, we'll need some more information. Can you please provide a minimal sample (either as a zip attached to this issue or in a separate repository) that reproduces the behaviour that you have described?

[Marco-Sulla]

Yes, excuse me, I wrong the project, and furthermore it seems it's fixed now in trunk:

@Configuration(proxyBeanMethods = false)

[wilkinsona]

@Configuration(proxyBeanMethods = false)

Just for the record, that setting won't have any effect on an early initialization problem preventing post-processing of the ProxyTransactionManagementConfiguration bean.

[EricLiu]

This problem can be repeated in a sample spring-boot project create by Initializr.
pom.xml like this:

4.0.0

org.springframework.boot
spring-boot-starter-parent
2.2.0.M5


debug
demo
0.0.1-SNAPSHOT
demo
Demo project for Spring Boot

<properties>
	<java.version>1.8</java.version>
</properties>

<dependencies>
	<dependency>
		<groupId>org.springframework.boot</groupId>
		<artifactId>spring-boot-starter-web</artifactId>
	</dependency>
	<dependency>
		<groupId>org.springframework.boot</groupId>
		<artifactId>spring-boot-starter-data-jpa</artifactId>
	</dependency>
	<dependency>
		<groupId>org.postgresql</groupId>
		<artifactId>postgresql</artifactId>
		<version>42.2.6</version>
	</dependency>
</dependencies>

<build>
	<plugins>
		<plugin>
			<groupId>org.springframework.boot</groupId>
			<artifactId>spring-boot-maven-plugin</artifactId>
		</plugin>
	</plugins>
</build>
<repositories>
	<repository>
		<id>spring-milestones</id>
		<name>Spring Milestones</name>
		<url>https://repo.spring.io/milestone</url>
	</repository>
</repositories>
<pluginRepositories>
	<pluginRepository>
		<id>spring-milestones</id>
		<name>Spring Milestones</name>
		<url>https://repo.spring.io/milestone</url>
	</pluginRepository>
</pluginRepositories>

And application class like this:

package debug.demo;

import org.springframework.boot.SpringApplication;
import org.springframework.boot.autoconfigure.SpringBootApplication;
import org.springframework.context.annotation.Configuration;

@SpringBootApplication()
public class DemoApplication {

public static void main(String[] args) {
	SpringApplication.run(DemoApplication.class, args);
}

}

[snicoll]

@EricLiu I've played around with your instructions and noticed this message doesn't show up if Spring Data is removed and replaced by the core JDBC starter (that still configures a transaction manager). I suspect Spring Data's initialization might trigger the early init and I've asked @mp911de to look into it.

The easiest way to reproduce, I think, is to generate project via start.spring.io with 3 dependencies:

spring-boot-starter-web
spring-boot-starter-data-jpa
h2 (as runtime database)

then without any changes (or any additional configuration) run the project or run test.

Also I've noticed this is not reproducible if I change starter-web to starter-webflux.

[wilkinsona]

Thank you, @ybulatnikov. That's consistent with @EricLiu's comment above. As @snicoll mentioned, @mp911de from the Spring Data team is looking into it.