Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding an @Version field to an existing, uniquely indexed entity generates a DuplicateKeyException on update [DATAMONGO-1051] #1972

Open
spring-projects-issues opened this issue Sep 10, 2014 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
type: bug A general bug

Comments

@spring-projects-issues
Copy link

Nathan Cantelmo opened DATAMONGO-1051 and commented

If you have an existing @Document entity with a unique index and you later add an @Version field to the entity class, updates to that entity via MongoRepository.save() will generate a DuplicateKeyException.

This appears to happen because MongoTemplate.doSaveVersioned() assumes that entities containing a null version field (rather than a null ID), do not currently exist and performs insert, rather than update in that case.

From MongoTemplate.java:

private <T> void doSaveVersioned(T objectToSave, MongoPersistentEntity<?> entity, String collectionName) {
[...]
// Fresh instance -> initialize version property
if (version == null) {
doInsert(collectionName, objectToSave, this.mongoConverter);
} else {
[...]
Update update = Update.fromDBObject(dbObject, ID_FIELD);
doUpdate(collectionName, query, update, objectToSave.getClass(), false, false);
}

Ideally, this behavior would be modified to check whether an id field already exists, and if so perform an update with the version field initialized to zero if null. For now, however, it’s relatively easy to work around it by manually creating the missing version fields on existing entities directly in Mongo.

A partial stacktrace of the DuplicateKeyException being generated as described is included below. Note that we were testing against an older version of spring-data, but this is an issue on the current version as well.

org.springframework.dao.DuplicateKeyException: { "serverUsed" : “[…]” , "ok" : 1 , "n" : 0 , "err" : "insertDocument :: caused by :: 11000 E11000 duplicate key error index: […].$id dup key: { : ObjectId('[…]') }" , "code" : 11000}; nested exception is com.mongodb.MongoException$DuplicateKey: { "serverUsed" : "[…]" , "ok" : 1 , "n" : 0 , "err" : "insertDocument :: caused by :: 11000 E11000 duplicate key error index: […].$id dup key: { : ObjectId('[…]') }" , "code" : 11000}
at org.springframework.data.mongodb.core.MongoExceptionTranslator.translateExceptionIfPossible(MongoExceptionTranslator.java:55) ~[spring-data-mongodb-1.5.2.RELEASE.jar!/:na]
at org.springframework.data.mongodb.core.MongoTemplate.potentiallyConvertRuntimeException(MongoTemplate.java:1918) ~[spring-data-mongodb-1.5.2.RELEASE.jar!/:na]
at org.springframework.data.mongodb.core.MongoTemplate.execute(MongoTemplate.java:412) ~[spring-data-mongodb-1.5.2.RELEASE.jar!/:na]
at org.springframework.data.mongodb.core.MongoTemplate.insertDBObject(MongoTemplate.java:895) ~[spring-data-mongodb-1.5.2.RELEASE.jar!/:na]
at org.springframework.data.mongodb.core.MongoTemplate.doInsert(MongoTemplate.java:717) ~[spring-data-mongodb-1.5.2.RELEASE.jar!/:na]
at org.springframework.data.mongodb.core.MongoTemplate.doSaveVersioned(MongoTemplate.java:850) ~[spring-data-mongodb-1.5.2.RELEASE.jar!/:na]
at org.springframework.data.mongodb.core.MongoTemplate.save(MongoTemplate.java:837) ~[spring-data-mongodb-1.5.2.RELEASE.jar!/:na]
at org.springframework.data.mongodb.repository.support.SimpleMongoRepository.save(SimpleMongoRepository.java:72) ~[spring-data-mongodb-1.5.2.RELEASE.jar!/:na]
[…]


3 votes, 5 watchers

@spring-projects-issues
Copy link
Author

Andrew Lebedev commented

Any news on this? Affects one of proposals to resolve DATAMONGO-946

@spring-projects-issues
Copy link
Author

Rob Moore commented

In terms of a workaround, is it sufficient to make the default version value 0 in the document class?

@gong4soft
Copy link

I'm facing the same issue. It would be great if this problem could be fixed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: bug A general bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants