Make state machine for saving process more robust. #2181
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
michael-simons
requested changes
Mar 15, 2021
| @Nullable String inDatabase) { | ||
|
|
||
| Neo4jPersistentProperty requiredIdProperty = targetNodeDescription.getRequiredIdProperty(); | ||
| PersistentPropertyAccessor<Object> ding = targetNodeDescription.getPropertyAccessor(entity); |
| @Nullable String inDatabase) { | ||
|
|
||
| Neo4jPersistentProperty requiredIdProperty = targetNodeDescription.getRequiredIdProperty(); | ||
| PersistentPropertyAccessor<Object> ding = targetNodeDescription.getPropertyAccessor(entity); |
| String databaseName = getDatabaseName(); | ||
|
|
||
| Collection<T> entities; | ||
| List<T> entities; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not that I mind, but is it necessary?
| // Save related | ||
| entitiesToBeSaved.forEach(entityToBeSaved -> processRelations(entityMetaData, entityToBeSaved, | ||
| isNewIndicator.get(entitiesToBeSaved.indexOf(entityToBeSaved)), databaseName)); | ||
| isNewIndicator.get(entitiesToBeSaved.indexOf(entityToBeSaved)), databaseName, entities.get(entitiesToBeSaved.indexOf(entityToBeSaved)))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
k, i See. But please change to only one indexOf operation.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If two entities and one were saved as
(:A{name:'a1'})-[:KNOWS]->(:A{name:'a2'})and we would add another back-referencing
KNOWSrelationship froma2toa1in a clean operationloadA1(which automatically pulls alsoa2)loadA2createA2KnowsA1the state machine assumes that a
a2from the existinga1relationship differs from the directly loadeda2and wants to re-create it which causes in the scenario of activated optimistic locking an
OptimisticLockingExceptionbecause "one of the two"a2s already got an update of its version.To mitigate the problem, a registration of initial objects in the state machine to mark them as processed were introduced.
Besides that the state machine got a little bit more robust, I wonder if the approach to check for objects' equality, that results in a
PROCESSED_ALL_VALUESstate, is the right one. I had to adjust one existing test because there were two "different" objects that were "equal" due to a very simple equals method.