Additionally, please see the generated SQL (Names and structure changed for readability). Please note the highlighted where clause dtrs_templ3_.rev<=51.If this read .rev=51 rather than .rev<=51 the query would do exactly what I would expect, returning only the sections that belong to revision 51 of the template.

Hope this makes sense.

select 
          tsa.rev as template_section_rev, 
          tsa.template as template_id, 
          tsa.sections as template_section_id, 
          sa.section_id as section_id, 
          sa.rev as section_rev 
from 
          template_section_aud tsa, 
          section_aud sa 
where 
          template_section_aud.sections=sa.section_id 
and 
          template_section_aud.template=1 
and 
          sa.rev=(
                    select 
                              max(dts.rev) 
                    from 
                              section_aud dts 
                    where 
                              dts.rev<=51 
                    and 
                              sa.section_id=dts.section_id
          ) 
          and 
                    tsa.rev=(
                              select
                                        max(templ.rev) 
                              from 
                                        dtrs_template_section_aud templ 
                              where 
                                        templ.rev<=51 
                              and 
                                        tsa.template=templ.template 
                              and 
                                        tsa.sections=templ.sections
                    ) 
          and 
                    tsa.revtype<>2 
          and 
                    section_aud.revtype<>2;

What elese would you expect to see in the A_B_AUD table? Deletes also?

AFAIK the listeners are setup correctly, I took them right from the getting started guide. I'll double check again tomorrow morning.

For now my problem is fixed, I changed the relationship to a bidrectional one (I essentially mimicked one of the envers manytomany test entities). The audit data generated appears to be identical as I posted above but the join correctly returns only the rows I would expect.

I'll take another look at the tests and if I have a chance this week will put together a test demonstrating this behaviour.

Thanks for the reply.

Karl

Adam,

It appears I didn't fix the problem in this case, and the test-case I wrote around this was giving a false-positive.

In my test I explicitly call A.getBs().remove(B0) which worked as expected, giving a REVTYPE of 2 for that revision.

We're using spring to bind the B's to the A on form submission, and I assume spring is creating a new list of Bs each time. This means all the REVTYPEs are 0 in the audited join table.

Have you come across this before and if so is there an easy solution? At the moment I'm thinking we'll have to do our own binding in addition to springs binding so we can explicitly call list.remove(B) to get the correct REVTYPE.

Any thoughts?

Hi Adam, sorry to push this but I have hit the proverbial brick wall.

Take the following:

template.setSections(newArrayList(sectionA));

And

template.setSections(newArrayList(sectionA, sectionB));

template.getSections().remove(sectionB);

Both statements have the same result, the template will only contain sectionA but Envers treats these differently, the second option will give me a REVTYPE of 2, the first option a REVTYPE of 0. Everything else appears to be identical.

Is this something you would expect?

Because we use spring to bind a template and some sections, we will only ever get a REVTYPE of 0 in the join table giving us false results when getting the entity at a particular revision number. I can overcome this with some additional binding in the controller, i.e looping over bound sections and adding removing them from the existing template but this is error prone and would also need to be done for all relationships, I would really like to avoid this workaround.

Kind regards,

Karl

Thanks for thre reply Adam, turns out replacing saveOrUpdate(template) with merge(template) gives the correct revision entries.

I'll get a test case together fo you after this weekend (xmas party ).

Thanks again,

Karl

Adam, I have finally created a Jira with a test-case for this. Turns out those jboss community updates were useful... as a reminder

https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/HHH-6942

Feel free to get in touch directly by e-mail if you have any questions.