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

Missing @Transactional on SimpleJpaRepository.delete(spec) #3499

Closed
gbrehmer opened this issue Jun 5, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed

Missing @Transactional on SimpleJpaRepository.delete(spec) #3499

gbrehmer opened this issue Jun 5, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
type: bug A general bug

Comments

@gbrehmer
Copy link

gbrehmer commented Jun 5, 2024

Is there a reason that this delete method variant has no predefined @Transactional marker?

Currently this breaks support (or needs additional boilerplate code) for the best practice of adding @Transactional(readOnly=true) at repository class level

@gbrehmer gbrehmer changed the title Missing Transactional on delete(spec) Missing @Transactional on SimpleJpaRepository.delete(spec) Jun 5, 2024
@spring-projects-issues spring-projects-issues added the status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged label Jun 5, 2024
@mp911de
Copy link
Member

mp911de commented Jun 5, 2024

That's an oversight on our end, the method should be marked @Transactional.

@mp911de mp911de added type: bug A general bug and removed status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged labels Jun 5, 2024
@mp911de mp911de self-assigned this Jun 5, 2024
@mp911de mp911de added this to the 3.2.7 (2023.1.7) milestone Jun 5, 2024
mp911de added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 5, 2024
Enusre same annotation order.

See #3499
mp911de added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 5, 2024
mp911de added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 5, 2024
Enusre same annotation order.

See #3499
mp911de added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 5, 2024
mp911de added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 5, 2024
Enusre same annotation order.

See #3499
@mp911de mp911de closed this as completed in 2cd6d00 Jun 5, 2024
@quaff
Copy link
Contributor

quaff commented Jun 7, 2024

@mp911de Please see #3194 to decide if we need a test case to prevent such oversight.

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

4 participants