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 <guillaume.s...@gmail.com> 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 > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev