`@DateCreated` won't work when defined in abstract base class from a library

[sascha-frinken]

Expected Behavior

An entity inheriting a class with a property that is annotated with @DateCreated should work even if the abstract base class is defined in a library (dependency).

Actual Behaviour

The entity cant't be saved as the database complains that the created column is null.

Steps To Reproduce

1. create a multi project setup
2. create a library subproject with an abstract class as below

abstract class BaseEntity {

    @DateCreated
    Instant created
}

3. create an application subproject with an entity that extends the class

@TupleConstructor
class FailingTestEntity extends BaseEntity {
    @Id
    long id
    String name
}

4. try to save the entity

failingRepository.save(new FailingTestEntity(1, "test"))

This will fail with the following error:

Caused by: io.micronaut.data.exceptions.DataAccessException: SQL Error executing INSERT: NULL not allowed for column "CREATED"; SQL statement: INSERT INTO failing_test_entity (name,created,id) VALUES (?,?,?) [23502-200]

This is the io.micronaut.data.query log:

22:55:44.553 [Test worker] DEBUG io.micronaut.data.query - Executing SQL Insert: INSERT INTO `failing_test_entity` (`name`,`created`,`id`) VALUES (?,?,?)
22:55:44.556 [Test worker] TRACE io.micronaut.data.query - Binding parameter at position 1 to value test with data type: STRING
22:55:44.557 [Test worker] TRACE io.micronaut.data.query - Binding parameter at position 2 to value null with data type: TIMESTAMP
22:55:44.557 [Test worker] TRACE io.micronaut.data.query - Binding parameter at position 3 to value 1 with data type: LONG

Environment Information

• OS: Linux:
• JDK: 11

Example Application

https://github.com/sascha-frinken/micronaut-data-issues-1282

Version

3.2.7

[dstepanov]

Making the field protected makes the test pass.

[sascha-frinken]

Making the field protected makes the test pass.

But that's not very groovy ;)

Will there be a fix?

[dstepanov]

@graemerocher WDYT?

[melix]

If you add protected then you're creating a field, and no accessors anymore. If you remove the modifier like in the bug report, then you're creating 3 things:

• a private field
• a getter
• a setter

So the problem is likely that the annotation ends up on a private field (which, if I recall, is Groovy's behavior when you annotate a property).

[jameskleeh]

This is a bug. Groovy users shouldn't have to move away from Groovy standard practices

[graemerocher]

undoubtedly it is a bug, but where is the bug in core or data?

[sascha-frinken]

@graemerocher Sorry I don't want to stress here. But it would be enough just to know if you are planning a fix for this? We have a workaround for this - it just means a lot of refactoring…

[sascha-frinken]

@dstepanov Do these annotations simply miss the @Inherited annotation (see here)?

[sascha-frinken]

@graemerocher @jameskleeh @dstepanov Sorry for my annoyance, but this is still important for us. We have a lot of applications with a lot of entities inheriting a BaseEntity that brings a @DateCreated and a @DateUpdated property. Will this be fixed?