I have a custom POJO on which I am mapping the database records using JOOQ .fetchInto(TestClassDto.class). Most of the fields in my POJO are exactly similar to a database table's columns. However, there are a few that are different, therefore, I added java persistence and used @Column to explicitly map such columns on my POJO as described here.
Unfortunately, this is not working if I use @Column on a few specific fields. Only the fields that are annotated with @Column are mapped and the rest are ignored and set Null even though they are similar to the table column name and should be mapped implicitly.
Could you give me a hint if I am missing anything?
Sample POJO:
@Getter
@Setter
public class TestClassDto {
@Column(name = "field_AB_XYZ") // explicit mapping is required, thus need @Column
private Long myfieldAB;
/* Here, mapping could be implicitly done without using @Column because
** database column name and POJO property is same but it stays empty if I
** ignore @Column */
@Column(name = "hello_world")
private Long helloWorld;
}
Lastly, If I completely remove @Column from POJO's properties, helloWorld property is filled (implicitly) but myfieldAb remains NULL (because mapping is not found as expected).
Below is sample query:
dslContext.select()
.from(SOMETHING)
.where(SOMETHING.NAME.eq("Something"))
.fetchInto(TestClassDto.class)
As of jOOQ 3.15, you either have to annotate
... with the @Column annotation. There's a pending feature request to mimick JPA more closely and make the @Column annotation optional for some attributes: https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/4586.
In the meantime, instead of using those JPA annotations, you could add auxiliary getters/setters for your column:
public void setFieldAbXyz(Long v) {
this.myfieldAB = v;
}
public Long getFieldAbXyz() {
return myfieldAB;
}