Bug 72608 - ScannerProvider causes NullPointerException in PathEntryManager
Summary: ScannerProvider causes NullPointerException in PathEntryManager
Status: VERIFIED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: CDT
Classification: Tools
Component: cdt-core (show other bugs)
Version: 2.0   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 2.0.1   Edit
Assignee: John Camelon CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 69071
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2004-08-25 11:38 EDT by Keith W. Campbell CLA
Modified: 2004-08-26 15:33 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Keith W. Campbell CLA 2004-08-25 11:38:21 EDT 
If ScannerProvider is the first user of 
PathEntryManager#getResolvedPathEntries it is likely (nearly guaranteed) that 
the Job scheduled by PathEntryManager to validate the path entries will 
encounter a NullPointerException because ScannerProvider modifies the array it 
receives (changing some entries to null).

I suggest that either PathEntryManager should never return the array used by 
the validation job or that ScannerProvider should not modify the array it gets 
from getResolvedPathEntries.
Comment 1 John Camelon CLA 2004-08-25 13:43:50 EDT 
Keith, 
Do you have a deterministic way of reproducing the problem? 
I'm looking into it, but it would help to have a BEFORE/AFTER test-case of 
sorts.
Comment 2 John Camelon CLA 2004-08-25 13:51:54 EDT 
I have been unable to reproduce this problem using the 2_0 branch's latest. 

Alain has fixed bug 69071, which to me seems to be the same problem.  (Comment 
Alain?)

It was fixed Aug 20th so it wouldn't be in that build that you have Keith.  
Marking this as Fixed to be validated w/our RC1 build tomorrow.
Comment 3 Alain Magloire CLA 2004-08-25 14:19:14 EDT 
> I have been unable to reproduce this problem using the 2_0 branch's latest. 

> Alain has fixed bug 69071, which to me seems to be the same problem.  (Comment 
> Alain?)

Yes, it was fix, keith could take a more recent build.
If it happens, reopen and reassign to me so we can fix it.

Note: some other fixes were added only to the head not to the branch.
Comment 4 Keith W. Campbell CLA 2004-08-26 11:23:31 EDT 
Tested OK with I200408260400.
Comment 5 Alain Magloire CLA 2004-08-26 15:33:26 EDT 
> Tested OK with I200408260400

by the way keith, that was some pretty funky debugging on your part.
For some reason this was not obvious to me at all, so to see you focus
on it like this ...

I wish all PRs be that detailed 8-)

later