JAX-RSSearch and FIQL: Beanspector throws (unecessary?) IllegalArgumentException with some POJOs structures

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

JAX-RSSearch and FIQL: Beanspector throws (unecessary?) IllegalArgumentException with some POJOs structures

matteo
Hello,

We use JAX-RSSearch and Fiql parser in a JAX-RS endpoint and we have a problem with org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.ext.search.Beanspector.

Let's consider the following pojos:

public class A {
       
        private String value;

        public String getValue(){ ... }
        public void setValue(String value) { ... }
}

public class B {
       
        private A aValue;

        public A getAValue(){ ... }
        public void setAValue(A avalue) { ... }
}

And assume one extends these pojos and decorates them with JPA annotations.

To leverage CXF org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.ext.search.SearchContext and JPACriteriaQueryVisitor as explained in the docs (http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-search.html#JAX-RSSearch-JPA2.0) and perform searches like

_s=aValue==*search token*

in OpenJPA one has to override the EntityB.getAValue as follows:

@Entity
// ... other JPA annotations are omitted
public class EntityB extends B {
       
        @Override
        // We need to specialize return type to EntityA to make SearchContext work
        public EntityA getAValue(){ ... }

        // This method definition is needed to avoid java.lang.VerifyError from JPA provider
        public void setAValue(EntityA avalue) { ... }
}

But with this scenario, the current implementation of org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.ext.search.Beanspector<T> fails, throwing IllegalArgumentException: Accessor 'aValue' type mismatch, getter type is X while setter type is Y, X and Y depending on the order of the EntityB's methods as returned by the Class.getMethods().

This is the current implementation of Beanspector where the exception is triggered:

@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private void init() {
    if (tclass == null) {
        tclass = (Class<T>)tobj.getClass();
    }
    for (Method m : tclass.getMethods()) {
        if (isGetter(m)) {
            getters.put(getPropertyName(m), m);
        } else if (isSetter(m)) {
            setters.put(getPropertyName(m), m);
        }
    }
    // check type equality for getter-setter pairs
    Set<String> pairs = new HashSet<>(getters.keySet());
    pairs.retainAll(setters.keySet());
    for (String accessor : pairs) {
        Class<?> getterClass = getters.get(accessor).getReturnType();
        Class<?> setterClass = setters.get(accessor).getParameterTypes()[0];
        if (!getterClass.equals(setterClass)) {
            throw new IllegalArgumentException(String
                .format("Accessor '%s' type mismatch, getter type is %s while setter type is %s",
                        accessor, getterClass.getName(), setterClass.getName()));
        }
    }
}

And this is how we patched it:

@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private void init() {
    if (tclass == null) {
        tclass = (Class<T>)tobj.getClass();
    }
    for (Method m : tclass.getMethods()) {
        if (isGetter(m)) {
        String pname = getPropertyName(m);
        if (!getters.containsKey(pname)) {
        getters.put(getPropertyName(m), m);
        } else {
        // Prefer the getter that has the most specialized class as a return type
        Method _m = getters.get(pname);
        if (_m.getReturnType().isAssignableFrom(m.getReturnType())) {
        getters.put(pname, m);
        }
        }
        } else if (isSetter(m)) {
        String pname = getPropertyName(m);
        if (!setters.containsKey(pname)) {
        setters.put(getPropertyName(m), m);
        } else {
        // Prefer the setter that has the most specialized class as a parameter
        Method _m = setters.get(pname);
        if (_m.getParameterTypes()[0].isAssignableFrom(m.getParameterTypes()[0])) {
        setters.put(pname, m);
        }
        }
        }
    }
    // check type equality for getter-setter pairs
    Set<String> pairs = new HashSet<>(getters.keySet());
    pairs.retainAll(setters.keySet());
    for (String accessor : pairs) {
        Class<?> getterClass = getters.get(accessor).getReturnType();
        Class<?> setterClass = setters.get(accessor).getParameterTypes()[0];
        if (!setterClass.isAssignableFrom(getterClass)) {
            throw new IllegalArgumentException(String
                .format("Accessor '%s' type mismatch, getter type is %s while setter type is %s",
                        accessor, getterClass.getName(), setterClass.getName()));
        }
    }
}

If you think this is OK we can create a pull request with this.

Thank you,
Matteo
matteo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JAX-RSSearch and FIQL: Beanspector throws (unecessary?) IllegalArgumentException with some POJOs structures

coheigea
Administrator
Hi,

Please create a pull request and we will review it in more detail.

Colm.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 1:28 PM Matteo Rulli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We use JAX-RSSearch and Fiql parser in a JAX-RS endpoint and we have a
> problem with org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.ext.search.Beanspector.
>
> Let's consider the following pojos:
>
> public class A {
>
>         private String value;
>
>         public String getValue(){ ... }
>         public void setValue(String value) { ... }
> }
>
> public class B {
>
>         private A aValue;
>
>         public A getAValue(){ ... }
>         public void setAValue(A avalue) { ... }
> }
>
> And assume one extends these pojos and decorates them with JPA
> annotations.
>
> To leverage CXF org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.ext.search.SearchContext and
> JPACriteriaQueryVisitor as explained in the docs (
> http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-search.html#JAX-RSSearch-JPA2.0) and
> perform searches like
>
> _s=aValue==*search token*
>
> in OpenJPA one has to override the EntityB.getAValue as follows:
>
> @Entity
> // ... other JPA annotations are omitted
> public class EntityB extends B {
>
>         @Override
>         // We need to specialize return type to EntityA to make
> SearchContext work
>         public EntityA getAValue(){ ... }
>
>         // This method definition is needed to avoid java.lang.VerifyError
> from JPA provider
>         public void setAValue(EntityA avalue) { ... }
> }
>
> But with this scenario, the current implementation of
> org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.ext.search.Beanspector<T> fails, throwing
> IllegalArgumentException: Accessor 'aValue' type mismatch, getter type is X
> while setter type is Y, X and Y depending on the order of the EntityB's
> methods as returned by the Class.getMethods().
>
> This is the current implementation of Beanspector where the exception is
> triggered:
>
> @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
> private void init() {
>     if (tclass == null) {
>         tclass = (Class<T>)tobj.getClass();
>     }
>     for (Method m : tclass.getMethods()) {
>         if (isGetter(m)) {
>             getters.put(getPropertyName(m), m);
>         } else if (isSetter(m)) {
>             setters.put(getPropertyName(m), m);
>         }
>     }
>     // check type equality for getter-setter pairs
>     Set<String> pairs = new HashSet<>(getters.keySet());
>     pairs.retainAll(setters.keySet());
>     for (String accessor : pairs) {
>         Class<?> getterClass = getters.get(accessor).getReturnType();
>         Class<?> setterClass =
> setters.get(accessor).getParameterTypes()[0];
>         if (!getterClass.equals(setterClass)) {
>             throw new IllegalArgumentException(String
>                 .format("Accessor '%s' type mismatch, getter type is %s
> while setter type is %s",
>                         accessor, getterClass.getName(),
> setterClass.getName()));
>         }
>     }
> }
>
> And this is how we patched it:
>
> @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
> private void init() {
>     if (tclass == null) {
>         tclass = (Class<T>)tobj.getClass();
>     }
>     for (Method m : tclass.getMethods()) {
>         if (isGetter(m)) {
>                 String pname = getPropertyName(m);
>                 if (!getters.containsKey(pname)) {
>                         getters.put(getPropertyName(m), m);
>                 } else {
>                         // Prefer the getter that has the most specialized
> class as a return type
>                         Method _m = getters.get(pname);
>                         if
> (_m.getReturnType().isAssignableFrom(m.getReturnType())) {
>                                 getters.put(pname, m);
>                         }
>                 }
>         } else if (isSetter(m)) {
>                 String pname = getPropertyName(m);
>                 if (!setters.containsKey(pname)) {
>                         setters.put(getPropertyName(m), m);
>                 } else {
>                         // Prefer the setter that has the most specialized
> class as a parameter
>                         Method _m = setters.get(pname);
>                         if
> (_m.getParameterTypes()[0].isAssignableFrom(m.getParameterTypes()[0])) {
>                                 setters.put(pname, m);
>                         }
>                 }
>         }
>     }
>     // check type equality for getter-setter pairs
>     Set<String> pairs = new HashSet<>(getters.keySet());
>     pairs.retainAll(setters.keySet());
>     for (String accessor : pairs) {
>         Class<?> getterClass = getters.get(accessor).getReturnType();
>         Class<?> setterClass =
> setters.get(accessor).getParameterTypes()[0];
>         if (!setterClass.isAssignableFrom(getterClass)) {
>             throw new IllegalArgumentException(String
>                 .format("Accessor '%s' type mismatch, getter type is %s
> while setter type is %s",
>                         accessor, getterClass.getName(),
> setterClass.getName()));
>         }
>     }
> }
>
> If you think this is OK we can create a pull request with this.
>
> Thank you,
> Matteo



--
Colm O hEigeartaigh

Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com