[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-8424?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Piotr Klimczak updated CAMEL-8424:
----------------------------------
Affects Version/s: (was: 2.14.0)
(was: 2.13.0)
(was: 2.12.0)
(was: 2.11.0)
(was: 2.10.0)
2.10.7
2.11.4
2.13.3
2.14.1
> Transaction propagated ignoring REQUIRES_NEW when using direct component
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CAMEL-8424
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-8424
> Project: Camel
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: camel-core
> Affects Versions: 2.10.7, 2.11.4, 2.13.3, 2.14.1, 2.15.0
> Reporter: Piotr Klimczak
>
> I found that when we are using exactly same propagation policy bean in
> different routes used together with "direct" component, then
> TransactionErrorHandler always propagates current transaction even if our
> policy is "PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW".
> The failing code is:
> {code}
> public TransactionErrorHandler(CamelContext camelContext, Processor
> output, CamelLogger logger,
> Processor redeliveryProcessor, RedeliveryPolicy redeliveryPolicy,
> ExceptionPolicyStrategy exceptionPolicyStrategy,
> TransactionTemplate transactionTemplate, Predicate retryWhile,
> ScheduledExecutorService executorService,
> LoggingLevel rollbackLoggingLevel) {
> super(camelContext, output, logger, redeliveryProcessor,
> redeliveryPolicy, null, null, false, retryWhile, executorService);
> setExceptionPolicy(exceptionPolicyStrategy);
> this.transactionTemplate = transactionTemplate;
> this.rollbackLoggingLevel = rollbackLoggingLevel;
> this.transactionKey =
> ObjectHelper.getIdentityHashCode(transactionTemplate);
> }
> @Override
> public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
> // we have to run this synchronously as Spring Transaction does *not*
> support
> // using multiple threads to span a transaction
> if (exchange.getUnitOfWork().isTransactedBy(transactionKey)) {
> // already transacted by this transaction template
> // so lets just let the error handler process it
> processByErrorHandler(exchange);
> } else {
> // not yet wrapped in transaction so lets do that
> // and then have it invoke the error handler from within that
> transaction
> processInTransaction(exchange);
> }
> }
> {code}
> So then for each policy there is a hash code created, which then is used to
> verify whether current route is already transacted by this transaction policy.
> This makes "PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW" ignored when used with "direct"
> component.
> So fo example:
> {code}
> from("activemq:queue:start").routeId("route1)
> .transacted("PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW")
> .setExchangePattern(ExchangePattern.InOnly)
> .to("activemq:queue:result1")
> .to("direct:route2")
> .throwException(new RuntimeException("Expected!"));
> from("direct:route2").routeId("route2)
> .transacted("PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW")
> .setExchangePattern(ExchangePattern.InOnly)
> .to("activemq:queue:result2");
> {code}
> The above route suppose to work in 2 different transactions, as our
> propagation is REQUIRES_NEW. But due to hash code verification and
> optimisation, route2 will participate in same transaction as route1 instead
> of new.
> This is rather buggy.
> Will create pull request in minutes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
