From: David J B. <djb...@pi...> - 2006-07-24 15:05:34
|
Dear eXistentialists, In an earlier message, I noted that a script that worked under earlier versions of eXist would die under the "new core" release with: > Internal evaluation error: context is missing for node 1.1.3.27.2.2 ! Michael advised me to enable verbose profiling and look at the logs, which I've done, but I'm sorry to say that I don't know enough to be able to draw meaningful conclusions from the log reports. Currently I see in my logs directory that when I run this query, access.log, exist.log, handled-error.log, profile.log, and sitemap.log change. error.log, flow.log, validation.log, xacml.log, and xmldb.log do not change. Of the ones that change: access.log just reports that I tried to access the page exist.log produces a MemoryStore miss, then a cache miss, and then some GeneralComparison messages handled-errors.log produces what looks like a stack trace profile.log produces what seems like the most informative output, but I'm not sure what I'm looking for, or how to zero in on the place where the error occurs sitemap.log tells me that it is processing handle-errors in the general sitemap Wolfgang then added: > Well, the message indicates a problem in eXist's internal processing. > It may appear in different contexts, but especially general > comparisons or not(). Most of these contexts should be fixed and the > error has become quite rare. However, it is possible that David has > found another processing trap somewhere. > > It could also be a user error (though we should try to throw a correct > error message then). Looking at the stack trace and the corresponding > query expression should tell us more. > If you can advise me on what specifically to look for in the logs and stack trace (which will help identify the offending query expression), or what to forward to the list so that someone with more experience can zero in on the source of the problem, I'd be happy to do that. Would posting the entire log information to the list be a helpful way to track down a problem that might be of common concern, or an inconsiderate abuse of the mailbox space of the recipients who aren't interested? Advice welcome. Thanks, David |