Meta data caching batch query issue

[AfsanehR-zz]

Fixes issue #375 and issue #374

[AfsanehR-zz]

Using the test repro raised by @thomek,
The test is doing the following operation:

pstmt.setint(1,0);
pstmt.setNString(2,"a");
pstmt.addBatch();

pstmt.setint(1,1);
pstmt.setNString(2,"b");
pstmt.addBatch();

pstmt.setint(1,2);
pstmt.setNString(2,"cc...");
pstmt.addBatch();

pstmt.setint(1,3);
pstmt.setNString(2,"d");
pstmt.addBatch();

pstmt.setint(1,4);
pstmt.setNString(2,"e");
pstmt.addBatch();

this is what the profiler shows before this pr:

exec sp_executesql N'insert into TEST_TABLE values (@P0,@P1)                ',N'@P0 int,@P1 nvarchar(4000)',0,N'a'

declare @p1 int
set @p1=1
exec sp_prepexec @p1 output,N'@P0 int,@P1 nvarchar(4000)',N'insert into TEST_TABLE values (@P0,@P1)                ',1,N'b'
select @p1

declare @p1 int
set @p1=2
exec sp_prepexec @p1 output,N'@P0 int,@P1 nvarchar(max)',N'insert into TEST_TABLE values (@P0,@P1)                ',2,N'cccc.....'
select @p1

--->duplicate insert happens here
declare @p1 int
set @p1=3
exec sp_prepexec @p1 output,N'@P0 int,@P1 nvarchar(4000)',N'insert into TEST_TABLE values (@P0,@P1)                ',4,N'e'
select @p1

Result of profiler after the changes made:

exec sp_executesql N'insert into TEST_TABLE values (@P0,@P1)                ',N'@P0 int,@P1 nvarchar(4000)',0,N'a'
declare @p1 int
set @p1=1
exec sp_prepexec @p1 output,N'@P0 int,@P1 nvarchar(4000)',N'insert into TEST_TABLE values (@P0,@P1)                ',1,N'b'
select @p1

declare @p1 int
set @p1=2
exec sp_prepexec @p1 output,N'@P0 int,@P1 nvarchar(max)',N'insert into TEST_TABLE values (@P0,@P1)                ',2,N'ccc...'
select @p1

declare @p1 int
set @p1=3
exec sp_prepexec @p1 output,N'@P0 int,@P1 nvarchar(4000)',N'insert into TEST_TABLE values (@P0,@P1)                ',3,N'd'
select @p1

exec sp_execute 3,4,N'e'

The issue is when we hit the error message of "could not find prepared statement with handle x", we don't reset the batch parameters and reset the preparedTypeDefinitions

@TobiasSQL your thoughts are appreciated on this.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #393 into dev will increase coverage by 4.8%.
The diff coverage is 60%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##                dev     #393     +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage     40.12%   44.92%   +4.8%     
- Complexity     1890     2132    +242     
===========================================
  Files           107      107             
  Lines         24482    24671    +189     
  Branches       4038     4102     +64     
===========================================
+ Hits           9823    11084   +1261     
+ Misses        12820    11723   -1097     
- Partials       1839     1864     +25

Flag	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
#JDBC41	44.78% <60%> (+4.78%)	2121 <0> (+239)	⬆️
#JDBC42	44.74% <60%> (+4.74%)	2126 <0> (+244)	⬆️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...oft/sqlserver/jdbc/SQLServerPreparedStatement.java	49.83% <60%> (+7.39%)	162 <0> (+26)	⬆️
...oft/sqlserver/jdbc/SQLServerParameterMetaData.java	23.98% <0%> (-1.55%)	31% <0%> (+1%)
...QLServerColumnEncryptionAzureKeyVaultProvider.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0% <0%> (ø)	⬇️
...m/microsoft/sqlserver/jdbc/KeyVaultCredential.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0% <0%> (ø)	⬇️
...ncurrentlinkedhashmap/ConcurrentLinkedHashMap.java	42.42% <0%> (+0.21%)	46% <0%> (ø)	⬇️
...om/microsoft/sqlserver/jdbc/SQLServerBulkCopy.java	49.71% <0%> (+0.42%)	214% <0%> (+4%)	⬆️
...soft/sqlserver/jdbc/SQLServerDatabaseMetaData.java	29.47% <0%> (+0.45%)	48% <0%> (+2%)	⬆️
...n/java/com/microsoft/sqlserver/jdbc/DataTypes.java	77.4% <0%> (+0.5%)	5% <0%> (ø)	⬇️
...m/microsoft/sqlserver/jdbc/SQLServerStatement.java	59.57% <0%> (+0.5%)	138% <0%> (+9%)	⬆️
...oft/sqlserver/jdbc/SQLServerResultSetMetaData.java	40.84% <0%> (+0.7%)	23% <0%> (+1%)	⬆️
... and 22 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5fe6ccc...e3b9415. Read the comment docs.

[AfsanehR-zz]

Hi @rPraml , Thank you for submitting pr #374 for the valuable repro of this bug. Since that one was opened to our master branch, I went ahead and added your pr to this commit.