Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revert "Add caller stacktrace to rethrown RuntimeException (#17249)" #17523

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Sep 14, 2020

Conversation

mmedenjak
Copy link
Contributor

@mmedenjak mmedenjak commented Sep 11, 2020

This reverts commit 318b336. Reasoning is that it introduces
significant changes in the invocation handling and causes some tests to
start failing (see #6383).
An alternate or augmented solution must be considered.

EDIT: had to revert #17438 as well since it relied on a method in ExceptionUtil which was introduced by the above commit.

…#17249)"

This reverts commit 318b336. Reasoning is that it introduces
significant changes in the invocation handling and causes some tests to
start failing. An alternate or augmented solution must be considered.
@mmedenjak mmedenjak added this to the 4.0.3 milestone Sep 11, 2020
@mmedenjak mmedenjak requested a review from a team as a code owner September 11, 2020 11:16
@mmedenjak mmedenjak self-assigned this Sep 11, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@puzpuzpuz puzpuzpuz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine with correctness of the revert, but we need to reopen #17202 if we merge this one. And once we reopen it, we have a high prio defect with 4.0.3 milestone. So, we probably need to find a way to fix it.

@mmedenjak
Copy link
Contributor Author

@puzpuzpuz I'm actually doubting the priority of that issue. It says:

This makes it hard to follow the stack trace. The solution is already available on the member side. This issue is to address the problems on the client-side.

To me it sounds like a usability enhancement, when debugging or analysing issues. And it's not a regression introduced in 4.0.3, seems like it's the consequence of a 4.0 PR (#15441).

@puzpuzpuz
Copy link
Contributor

@mmedenjak OK, then the issue could be addressed in the next patch release.

@mmedenjak mmedenjak merged commit d717127 into hazelcast:4.0.z Sep 14, 2020
@mmedenjak mmedenjak deleted the 4.0.3-revert-17249 branch September 14, 2020 11:18
@mmedenjak
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for the reviews, everyone! 🙇

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants