View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0003348JEDI VCL00 JVCL Componentspublic2006-06-28 13:31
ReporterelahnAssigned Toelahn 
Status resolvedResolutionfixed 
Product Version3.00 
Target VersionFixed in Version3.30 
Summary0003348: AV in JvInspector when the same object is referenced twice
DescriptionThis occurs when the same object is referenced in 2 different places. When "InspectObject := nil", an AV occurs.

Attached is a demo of this bug. Simply click "Assign" then "Assign to Nil" to generate it.
TagsNo tags attached.


2005-12-08 14:11 (1,396 bytes)


2006-04-04 07:09

administrator   ~0008893

I'm seeing this, but I'm not sure if it's a "feature" or a serious bug. First of all I don't see a situation where this could occur in "real life", but I'm not using the inspector that much. As such, I would appreciate any insights.


2006-04-04 11:51

developer   ~0008917

This happens all the time for me...I have structured data classes, where certain data objects are referenced by multiple objects. Sorry I can't be more specific, but it's confidential.

In order to work around it, I don't display the properties of certain object types in the Inspector, the user must double-click the item to open it in a new Inspector window in order to view it's contents. This has limited the design of my data structure, but I have no way of knowing the degree.

Hypothetical example: address book groups - each Group contains multiple Person objects, and a Person can be a member of multiple groups.

Another example: a log of events; each event references the object involved. Since over time many events could occur involving that object, it would occur multiple times in the Inspector.


2006-06-27 03:50

administrator   ~0009665

Can you investigate and possibly find a solution?


2006-06-28 02:33

developer   ~0009706

Commenting out the contents of TJvInspectorPropData.NotifyRemoveData() solves the issue and doesn't appear to cause a memory leak. However, I don't know the reason this code is there, do you?


2006-06-28 12:43

manager   ~0009717

It's been a long time when I wrote it. I'm pretty sure I know what the reason was, but for the life of me can't figure out how I intended it to perform.

Anyway, if no memory is being leaked, I suggest to comment it out for now. I'll see if I can figure it out and get back to this later.



2006-06-28 13:31

developer   ~0009718

Commented out in SVN revision 10757.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2005-12-08 14:11 elahn New Issue
2005-12-08 14:11 elahn File Added:
2006-04-04 07:09 obones Note Added: 0008893
2006-04-04 07:09 obones Status new => confirmed
2006-04-04 11:51 elahn Note Added: 0008917
2006-06-27 03:50 obones Note Added: 0009665
2006-06-28 02:33 elahn Note Added: 0009706
2006-06-28 12:43 marcelb Note Added: 0009717
2006-06-28 13:31 elahn Status confirmed => resolved
2006-06-28 13:31 elahn Resolution open => fixed
2006-06-28 13:31 elahn Assigned To => elahn
2006-06-28 13:31 elahn Note Added: 0009718