Trying to make sure I understand.. so the report is just wrong? Or is there some difference in your model versus theirs?
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:22 PM andrea boriero <[email protected]> wrote: > yes also for the MappedSuperclass > > from: > > @MappedSuperclass > public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity { > @Column( name = "CODE") > private String code; > > @Column( name = "NAME") > private String name; > } > > @Entity > public class CatalogEntity extends AbstractCatalogEntity { > @Id > private Long id; > } > > I obtained : > > @Generated(value = "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor") > @StaticMetamodel(AbstractCatalogEntity.class) > public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity_ { > > public static volatile SingularAttribute<AbstractCatalogEntity, String> > code; > public static volatile SingularAttribute<AbstractCatalogEntity, String> > name; > > public static final String CODE = "code"; > public static final String NAME = "name"; > > } > > @Generated(value = "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor") > @StaticMetamodel(CatalogEntity.class) > public abstract class CatalogEntity_ extends > org.hibernate.userguide.model.AbstractCatalogEntity_ { > > public static volatile SingularAttribute<CatalogEntity, Long> id; > > public static final String ID = "id"; > > } > > > > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:52, Guillaume Smet <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > The generated model of the MappedSuperclass? > > > > Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure. > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not > >> defined in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the > subclasses > >> extending it. > >> > >> I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify > >> any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a > >> subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is > correct. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right > access > >>> type for a mapped super class: > >>> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 . > >>> > >>> Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole placement > >>> of > >>> the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might not > >>> be > >>> defined (this is the OP's case). > >>> > >>> I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but > >>> the > >>> OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access type > >>> of > >>> an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping > annotations > >>> on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the > >>> entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type". > >>> > >>> I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations > >>> placement > >>> if there is no @Id annotation. > >>> > >>> If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :). > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Guillaume > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> hibernate-dev mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > >>> > >> > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
