[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-1822?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12917379#action_12917379 ] 

Stefan Wokusch commented on OPENJPA-1822:
-----------------------------------------

ohh, and the Problem could be solved by adding a em.flush() before the em.remove(e1) inside the Test. A Flush inside the Listener could not solve that Problem.

> Delete ignored in Listener
> --------------------------
>
>                 Key: OPENJPA-1822
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-1822
>             Project: OpenJPA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: jpa
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>            Reporter: Stefan Wokusch
>
> I have a Model with one Entity with an Relation to a Entity of the same Class.
> Im using the LifecycleListeners to detect delete Events onto this Entities.
> I had an Testcase with two Entities e1 and e2. e1 had a reference to e2. Now i'm removing e2:
> em.getTransaction().begin();
> TestEntity e1=new TestEnity();
> em.persist(e1);
> TestEntity e2=new TestEntity();
> e1.setRef(e2);
> em.persist(e2);
> em.remove(e2);
> em.getTransaction().commit();
> In the Listener ill create a Query to find the Pointing Entity pointing to it (here e1) and remove this entity too.
> TestEntity toDelete=helper.getReferer(entity); <- a simple query to get the obj with ref=entity
> em.remove(toDelete);
> assert(em.isRemoved(lastPoint));
> This assert here failes inside the Listener.
> After some analysis, i think, i found the Problem:
> Inside the BrokerImpl is a Set called "_operating". I think it should avoid endless recursions in cycle-Models or twice calls of delete with the same entity. This set is used inside the persist AND the delete Method. The workflow seems like this:
> -> remove(e2);
> -> call Listeners
> -> make query
> -> flush needed, so persist the Entities
> -> the e1 is now added here into that _operating-Set (BrokerImpl Line 2522)
> -> query complete, the right entity was found
> -> remove(e1);
> -> the _operating set contains the e1
> -> ignore the delete command
> It could be a Bugfix to create a second _operating Variable for these. One for persists and one for deletes, so that there is no way ignoring a delete-command

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.