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 37872 - "UOException: This read-only implementation..." from SyntaxElement.getNext in XSLGrammarQuery.updateProperties
Summary: "UOException: This read-only implementation..." from SyntaxElement.getNext in...
Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 38699
Alias: None
Product: xml
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XSL (show other bugs)
Version: 3.x
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Petr Pisl
URL:
Keywords: RANDOM
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-12-09 02:29 UTC by Jesse Glick
Modified: 2007-09-25 01:34 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Stack trace (1.88 KB, text/plain)
2003-12-09 02:29 UTC, Jesse Glick 		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 Jesse Glick 2003-12-09 02:29:21 UTC 
Dev build. Happened to me just once, during code
completion (I think) in an XSLT file, so probably
unreproducible.
Comment 1 Jesse Glick 2003-12-09 02:29:50 UTC 
Created attachment 12474 [details]
Stack trace
Comment 2 Petr Pisl 2004-02-24 16:24:26 UTC 
Because I can't reproduce I will not fix it to the 3.6. Did you see
the exception again?
Comment 3 Jesse Glick 2004-02-24 16:56:07 UTC 
No, I don't know how to reproduce it. Haven't used XML editing enough
recently to have seen it.

I think at a minimum the exception should be changed for 3.6 however.
It is completely wrong and should be replaced with an assert
statement: the internal logic of getNext is apparently broken at this
point, and instead of throwing an AssertionError or the like with info
to help debug, it throws UOException, which is supposedly to be used
for a totally different purpose. (The code even used to have an
IllegalStateException here, which is more appropriate, but it was
commented out for some reason.)
Comment 4 _ pkuzel 2004-08-04 14:09:30 UTC 
Already reported as issue #38699. Relevant patch is already applied.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 38699 ***
Comment 5 dmladek 2004-08-04 16:01:50 UTC 
yap, bouth issues are identical