Hello,

I created an issue (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7966) and 
submitted a PR (https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/510/).

Matteo

> On 22 Jan 2019, at 17:33, Colm O hEigeartaigh <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 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 <[email protected]> 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

Reply via email to