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 188808 - .java compiler Coupling error causes "Scanning projects" and code completion to hang
Summary: .java compiler Coupling error causes "Scanning projects" and code completion ...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 235676
Alias: None
Product: java
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Source (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal with 1 vote (vote)
Assignee: Jan Lahoda
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-07-21 02:29 UTC by pekarna
Modified: 2013-09-14 02:30 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

NetBeans log with the error (13.65 KB, text/plain)
2010-07-21 02:29 UTC, pekarna
Java file in question (8.71 KB, application/octet_stream)
2010-07-21 02:52 UTC, pekarna

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description pekarna 2010-07-21 02:29:56 UTC
Created attachment 100943 [details]
NetBeans log with the error

After adding the attached file,, "Scanning projects..." hangs forever, and code completion stops working.

See the attached log or at

The project which demonstrates it can be got from SVN:

svn co -r99
Comment 1 pekarna 2010-07-21 02:52:18 UTC
Created attachment 100944 [details]
Java file in question
Comment 2 Jan Lahoda 2010-08-26 12:52:55 UTC
I tried to reproduce the problem, but unfortunatelly did not succeed. When this happens again, could you please take a thread dump and attach it here and reopen? Thanks.
Comment 3 bht 2013-09-14 02:30:48 UTC
The source code is a Wicket file with inner classes. These inner classes are causing problems. We may be able to use the wicket-examples as a reproducing test case, see bug 235676. This bug is still relevant in version 7.4 dev although today the consequences don't seem to be as severe as in 2010. This may be a duplicate of bug 235676. I have compared the stack traces in the dump files - they are basically the same.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 235676 ***