Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:17:37 +0100
From: Kristian Waagan <Kristian.Waagan@Sun.COM>
Subject: Suspectible swallowing of AssertFailure in BTreeScanInfo
Sender: Kristian.Waagan@Sun.COM
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-id: <45F94771.8050204@Sun.com>
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; no-NO;
 rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061229
 Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0

Hi,

Work in the access layer revealed something I find a bit disturbing, at 
least with the way the code looks today. In the constructor of 
impl.store.access.btree.BTreeScanInfo:

         try
         {
             stat_treeHeight = scan.getHeight();
         }
         catch (Throwable t)
         {
             stat_treeHeight = -1;
         }

I didn't understand why Throwable was caught and ignored, so first I 
tried to change it to StandardException. This caused the test 
ddlTableLockMode to fail.  I looked at what was going on, and found this 
to be thrown from the code above (code modified to print the Throwable):

*** Start: ddlTableLockMode jdk1.5.0_11 2007-03-15 13:53:12 ***
48a49,52
 > org.apache.derby.shared.common.sanity.AssertFailure: ASSERT FAILED 
ControlRow.Get() is being called on a closed container.
 > org.apache.derby.shared.common.sanity.AssertFailure: ASSERT FAILED 
ControlRow.Get() is being called on a closed container.
 > org.apache.derby.shared.common.sanity.AssertFailure: ASSERT FAILED 
ControlRow.Get() is being called on a closed container.
 > org.apache.derby.shared.common.sanity.AssertFailure: ASSERT FAILED 
ControlRow.Get() is being called on a closed container.
Test Failed.
*** End:   ddlTableLockMode jdk1.5.0_11 2007-03-15 13:53:21 ***

As I said, I find this a bit disturbing. Can anyone with knowledge of 
this part of the code shed some light on this?

Specifically:
  a) Is this expected behavior?
  b) Can you add a descriptive comment for the catch block?
  c) Should the catch block be more specific, and maybe check for the 
expected assert failure?


thanks,
-- 
Kristian