This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 149537 - java.util.EmptyStackException at java.util.Stack.peek
Summary: java.util.EmptyStackException at java.util.Stack.peek
Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 116030
Alias: None
Product: java
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Refactoring (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@java
URL: http://statistics.netbeans.org/except...
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-10-08 16:49 UTC by pribyl
Modified: 2008-10-13 09:58 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter: 31938

Attachments
stacktrace (569 bytes, text/plain)
2008-10-08 16:49 UTC, pribyl 		Details
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 pribyl 2008-10-08 16:49:25 UTC 
Build: NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 200810080201)
VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM, 11.0-b15, Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment, 1.6.0_10-rc-b28
OS: Windows XP, 5.1, x86

User Comments:
pribyl: I was renaming a component of a JFrame. I used the refactoring preview when this Exception occured.

GUEST: When refactoring (renaming *.java file)

grimlock81: Refactoring - moving classes to a different package

pribyl: I was renaming a component of a JFrame. I used the refactoring preview when this Exception occured.



Stacktrace: 
java.util.EmptyStackException
        at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:85)
        at java.util.Stack.pop(Stack.java:67)
        at javax.swing.JTree.setExpandedState(JTree.java:3357)
        at javax.swing.JTree.expandPath(JTree.java:2166)
        at javax.swing.JTree.expandRow(JTree.java:2181)
        at org.netbeans.modules.refactoring.spi.impl.RefactoringPanel$2.run(RefactoringPanel.java:534)
Comment 1 pribyl 2008-10-08 16:49:33 UTC 
Created attachment 71390 [details]
stacktrace
Comment 2 Jan Pokorsky 2008-10-08 17:27:27 UTC 
It looks to be consequence of the same problem as described in issue 116030.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 116030 ***
Comment 3 pribyl 2008-10-13 09:58:33 UTC 
Yes, it seems to be the same problem.

Verified as duplicate