rspec/rules/S3363/java/rule.adoc

== Why is this an issue?

Using a ``++type="timestamp"++`` column as the primary key of a table is slightly risky. Two threads could create new objects in the table close enough in sequence for them to both have the same timestamp. Alternately, this could happen during a daylight savings time change. Instead, use a numeric value as the ``++@Id++``.


This rule raises an issue when a time or date-related class is annotated with ``++@Id++``.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,java]
----
public class Person {

  @Id
  @Type(type="timestamp")
  private Date birthDate;  // Noncompliant

  private String lastName;
  // ...
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,java]
----
public class Person {

  @Id
  @GeneratedValue
  int id;

  @Type(type="timestamp")
  private Date birthDate;

  private String lastName;
  // ...
}
----


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

=== Message

Use a numeric  "@id" column instead.


=== Highlighting

* primary: ``++@id++`` annotation


endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]