DeferredChangeDetectionPolicy.calculateChanges() Bug in Code?

[numeralnathan]

I am looking at line 129 in DeferredChangeDetectionPolicy. I am wondering if modifyVersionField != null should be modifyVersionField == null.

https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink/blob/master/foundation/org.eclipse.persistence.core/src/main/java/org/eclipse/persistence/descriptors/changetracking/DeferredChangeDetectionPolicy.java#L129

        if (!changes.hasForcedChangesFromCascadeLocking() && unitOfWork.hasOptimisticReadLockObjects()) {
            Boolean modifyVersionField = (Boolean)unitOfWork.getOptimisticReadLockObjects().get(clone);
            if ((modifyVersionField != null) && (unitOfWork instanceof RepeatableWriteUnitOfWork) && (((RepeatableWriteUnitOfWork)unitOfWork).getCumulativeUOWChangeSet() != null)) {
                // modify the version field if the UOW cumulative change set does not contain a changeset for this clone
                if (((RepeatableWriteUnitOfWork)unitOfWork).getCumulativeUOWChangeSet().getObjectChangeSetForClone(clone) == null) {
                    modifyVersionField = Boolean.TRUE;
                }
            }
            changes.setShouldModifyVersionField(modifyVersionField);
        }

I ask this because clone is an object that was only read from the database and none of the fields were read or changed. Thus, its @Version field shouldn't need to increment. It is never used with any of the other objects in the transaction. The second line above sets modifyVersionField to false. The third line evaluates to true. The 5ᵗʰ line does not find clone in the cumulative unit of work change set and so modifyVersionField = Boolean.TRUE executes.

What do I not understand? Should modifyVersionField != null be changed to modifyVersionField == null because this is a bug? Should the clone object be added to the cumulative unit of work change set when reading the object from the DB or cache? Do I need to change some of the annotations on the clone object so that its @Version field is not incremented?

[numeralnathan]

I was able to determine that EclipseLink has a bug. I created an issue and I am closing this discussion.