Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

POJO instrumentation of superclass methods does not work when the methods are not overridden in the child class




I've instrumented a POJO rule as:

Match classes "that extend a Super Class that ends with BaseCatalogWorkflowStep" (didn't want to bother with the package prefix, so used ends with, instead of equals)

Method name "equals in"


We have been capturing BTs correctly for all subclasses of BaseCatalogWorkflowStep which override the in() method.


However, for any subclasses where the in() method is not overridden, the BTs aren't captured.


Our application is rather complex, in the sense that we're using IBM proprietary code, that is invoked when certain events are triggered by users. One such event is the in() method of the BaseCatalogWorkflowStep class. Any subclasses which extend the BaseCatalogWorkflowStep class but do not override the in() method, still have the in() method invoked on them, but the code executed is the one from the parent class.


Is there any way, besides ovderriding the in() method and just calling, that we can capture BTs in this scenario?


I've attached screenshots of the POJO rule, of a class definition that is captured and of a class definition that is not captured.


POJO rulePOJO ruleClass definition which is NOT capturedClass definition which is NOT capturedClass definition which is capturedClass definition which is captured



AppDynamics Team (Retired)

Hi @Radu.Pana


A colleague of mine suggested that you might succeed if you use the  “class equals” rule instead of extends.


Let us know if the suggestion works for you. 

Hi Radhika,


Thanks for your answer.


I've tried your suggestion, but transactions were still not being detected.


In the end, I've succeeded in capturing the transactions by using the "class which implements an interface equal to" condition. So I've ended up having both rules running, with different priorities. If the first rule ("class that extends a class equal to") doesn't detect the transaction, the 2nd rule ("class that implements an interface equal to") will.


Still not sure why the "extends" rule wasn't working.


The ticket can be closed, thank you.






June 26 Webinar
Discover new Splunk integrations and AI innovations for Cisco AppDynamics.

Register Now!

Observe and Explore
Dive into our Community Blog for the Latest Insights and Updates!

Read the blog here