Seam catch eats all exceptions silently
---------------------------------------
Key: SOLDER-315
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SOLDER-315
Project: Solder
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Exception Handling
Affects Versions: 3.1.0.CR1
Environment: ANY
Reporter: Mike Mosiewicz
I observed that seam catch eats all exceptions silently. Specifically it make
my development stop for a few hours becouse we didn't know there was model
update exception. Here is what I investigated:
1. Every exception in CatchExceptionFilter appear to be handled (ie.
catchEvent.isHandled() returned always true)
2. It was becouse it is marked handled in
ExceptionHandlerDispatch.executeHandlers switch statement. I.e. here:
...
switch (breadthFirstEvent.getFlow()) {
case HANDLED:
eventException.setHandled(true);
return;
case MARK_HANDLED:
eventException.setHandled(true);
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
....
3. breadthFirstEvent.getFlow() is MARK_HANDLED becouse it's the default value.
The result is that it's enough there is a matching exception handler to mark
the caught exception as handled and stop any exception display. And it's highly
probable that you have seam-transaction in your library, so you have
org.jboss.seam.transaction.SimpleTransactionExceptionHandler.markTransactionRollback
handler active. That handler is intended to mark all the exceptional
transactions to roll back. However it is irrelevant for this handler what kind
of exception it handles. I wouldn't say that it actually handles exceptions. It
just wants to know of all the exception that may cause transaction to be
invalid and to rollback the transaction. But it definitely should be no mean to
stop further processing of exception and it was probably not intended to hide
exceptions.
I think there should be (at least) two kind of handlers. Those that just listen
to exceptions and do some actions but they are not supposed to be a final
destination for exceptions. These could be transaction related handlers,
logging handlers, etc. And there should also be handlers that are able to deal
with specific exceptions ultimately.
Right now there is a notion that exception is handled if there is a handler for
the exception. If so - SimpleTransactionExceptionHandler should not be a
handler.
I think it would be better if MARK_HANDLED was renamed to UNHANDLED and
wouldn't cause eventException.setHandled(true). I would then use some
annotation to add to those handler that are ultimate and definite, or set
handled property programatically. The whole difference between HANDLED and
MARK_HANDLED states is artificial. It feels like there should be a difference
when some handler says that it really handled the situation or did not.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
_______________________________________________
seam-issues mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-issues
