javaee-spec | Java EE Platform Specification | Object-Relational Mapping library

what you are looking for is using Cross-Parameter Constraints. some basic guide can be found here chapter 2.x https://www.baeldung.com/javax-validation-method-constraints

That possibility of autowiring the proxy for HttpServletRequest's is a part of Spring MVC, and sadly it's not documented properly.

The best you can find about it is in some release notes of spring-web:3.0.0. For example, take a look at the release notes of 3.0.0.M4 and especially at this issue where Juergen Hoeller (one of the main developers of String) talks about how it works since this version.

Also, feel free to check the sources (WebApplicationContextUtils, RequestContextHolder), they're well documented.

By putting @MapsId("clubId") on the association, you're saying 'clubId does not provide its own mapping. Instead, the mapping on this property here should be used to map the clubId property'.

This means that when persisting the entity, Eclipselink will use Team.club's id to populate the club_id join column, and then, it will use the value of that join column, to populate the Java property Team.embeddedId.clubId, whenever the entity is fetched/refreshed. Whatever mapping you put on Team.embeddedId.clubId will be ignored.

The error comes from the fact that Eclipselink does not consider club_id to be mapped twice. Instead, only the mapping on Team.club is taken into account. Being the only mapping for a primary key property, it may not be insertable = false, updatable = false.

The solution is simple:

1. If you want Team.club to control the value of the club_id column, drop the insertable = false, updatable = false
2. Conversely, if you want Team.embeddedId.clubId to control club_id, drop @MapsId altogether

Sometime required parameter is not there so it gives an error. In your question not whole code or error snep is given so i describe on my way.

Check following two points first,

1. All required configuration data are provided.
2. Your email id must have permission to send mail using your application (Allow "less secure app" in your gmail account - if you're using).

"What would be the benefit of testing doFilter method?"

None!

Quoting answer to the question "Should unit tests be written for getter and setters?":

Unit tests are there to test the behaviour of your code, ...

There is really no behavior to be tested in that Filter code. The behavior to be tested is in the HappyCookieResponseWrapper class, and you're already testing that. Repeating that test would just be a waste of time.

"I want to have 100% branch coverage"

Quoting a different part of the same answer above:

@Will said you should aim for 100% code coverage, but in my opinion that's a dangerous distraction. You can write unit tests that have 100% coverage, and yet test absolutely nothing.