Skip to content

Fix misleading NPE when request parameter is not Serializable#16299

Open
chensishang wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:3.3from
chensishang:fix-16293-misleading-npe
Open

Fix misleading NPE when request parameter is not Serializable#16299
chensishang wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:3.3from
chensishang:fix-16293-misleading-npe

Conversation

@chensishang
Copy link
Copy Markdown

When a Dubbo service is called with non-serializable parameters, the invocation deserialization fails silently and path becomes null. This null path is then passed to GroupServiceKeyCache which uses a ConcurrentHashMap that does not accept null keys, resulting in a confusing NullPointerException.

Added a null check for path in DubboProtocol.getInvoker() to throw a clear RemotingException with a meaningful message pointing users to the actual cause (non-serializable parameters).

Fixes #16293

What is the purpose of the change?

Checklist

  • Make sure there is a GitHub_issue field for the change.
  • Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
  • Write necessary unit-test to verify your logic correction. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add sample in dubbo samples project.
  • Make sure gitHub actions can pass. Why the workflow is failing and how to fix it?

When a Dubbo service is called with non-serializable parameters, the
invocation deserialization fails silently and `path` becomes null. This
null path is then passed to GroupServiceKeyCache which uses a
ConcurrentHashMap that does not accept null keys, resulting in a
confusing NullPointerException.

Added a null check for `path` in DubboProtocol.getInvoker() to throw
a clear RemotingException with a meaningful message pointing users to
the actual cause (non-serializable parameters).

Fixes apache#16293

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@codecov-commenter
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov-commenter commented May 31, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.78%. Comparing base (dfdf39b) to head (6a87012).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.3   #16299      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     60.78%   60.78%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity    11772    11761      -11     
============================================
  Files          1953     1953              
  Lines         89188    89191       +3     
  Branches      13454    13455       +1     
============================================
- Hits          54216    54213       -3     
- Misses        29406    29408       +2     
- Partials       5566     5570       +4     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration-tests-java21 32.12% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
integration-tests-java8 32.25% <0.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
samples-tests-java21 32.20% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
samples-tests-java8 29.74% <0.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
unit-tests-java11 59.01% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
unit-tests-java17 58.48% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unit-tests-java21 58.51% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unit-tests-java25 58.49% <100.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
unit-tests-java8 59.03% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@chensishang
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Hi reviewers, I noticed the Codecov check failed with "0% coverage". After checking, this seems to be due to an incomplete report upload ("HEAD比BASE少7次上传") rather than a problem with the code change itself.

I have already added a unit test (testGetInvokerThrowsOnNullPath) which covers the new null-check logic, and it passes locally. The Codecov result appears to be a false negative caused by the CI infrastructure.

Could you please take another look? Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Misleading NullPointerException when request parameter is not Serializable

2 participants