[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1364?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Pascal Schumacher updated LANG-1364:
------------------------------------
    Summary: ExceptionUtils#getRootCause(Throwable t) should return t if no 
lower level cause exists  (was: ExceptionUtils#getRootCause* inconsistency)

> ExceptionUtils#getRootCause(Throwable t) should return t if no lower level 
> cause exists
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LANG-1364
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1364
>             Project: Commons Lang
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.6
>            Reporter: Pascal Schumacher
>            Priority: Major
>
> {quote}
> I have found the design of three root cause related methods inconsistent
> when the input Throwable does not wrap up another Throwable.
> These three methods are
>    1. getRootCause(Throwable t)
>    2. getRootCauseMessage(Throwable t)
>    3. getRootCauseStackTrace(Throwable t)
> When the input t has no lower level cause:
>    - the first method returns null;
>    - the second method returns the message of t, which means the input t is
>    considered as the root cause in this method;
>    - the third method returns the stack trace of t, which also means this
>    method considers t as the root cause.
> Therefore, I consider the design of the first method is not consistent with
> the second and the third.
> I usually write a function myself to get the root cause of an exception;
> and it makes much better sense to me the root cause of a Throwable is
> itself if no more lower level cause exists.
> A request: change the first method to return t itself when there is no more
> 'causes'.
> {quote}
> Reported by Zheng Xie in 
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201710.mbox/%3CCAL-LHk7jvQGM9J1SPxLB2qEsXazwwq%2BYKuv29XgWXEcccHUn0w%40mail.gmail.com%3E



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to