Skip to main content
Commonmark migration
Source Link

It looks like you've caused a gack.

What you are looking at is what we call a GACK. A gack is our blue screen of death, our frowny Mac icon, our “the number you have reached is no longer in service”, our “Jedediah has died of dysentery”. A gack is what happens when an error got thrown within our application and we didn’t catch it and handle it.

 

What this means is that it’s not your fault. It’s ours. That’s why we apologize in that message. Sorry!

 

This friendly message is the above-water portion of a huge iceberg of functionality. The numbers you see are part of an elaborate system for efficiently bringing these events to the attention of R&D. This post will help you understand that system, and how you can help us in getting you running safely. (Hint: steer away from icebergs.)

Despite what the above says, you can very well cause a gack- this is a great example. They're harder to debug than the average error, and can be caused by just about anything that forces an operation that should never happen.

It looks like you've caused a gack.

What you are looking at is what we call a GACK. A gack is our blue screen of death, our frowny Mac icon, our “the number you have reached is no longer in service”, our “Jedediah has died of dysentery”. A gack is what happens when an error got thrown within our application and we didn’t catch it and handle it.

 

What this means is that it’s not your fault. It’s ours. That’s why we apologize in that message. Sorry!

 

This friendly message is the above-water portion of a huge iceberg of functionality. The numbers you see are part of an elaborate system for efficiently bringing these events to the attention of R&D. This post will help you understand that system, and how you can help us in getting you running safely. (Hint: steer away from icebergs.)

Despite what the above says, you can very well cause a gack- this is a great example. They're harder to debug than the average error, and can be caused by just about anything that forces an operation that should never happen.

It looks like you've caused a gack.

What you are looking at is what we call a GACK. A gack is our blue screen of death, our frowny Mac icon, our “the number you have reached is no longer in service”, our “Jedediah has died of dysentery”. A gack is what happens when an error got thrown within our application and we didn’t catch it and handle it.

What this means is that it’s not your fault. It’s ours. That’s why we apologize in that message. Sorry!

This friendly message is the above-water portion of a huge iceberg of functionality. The numbers you see are part of an elaborate system for efficiently bringing these events to the attention of R&D. This post will help you understand that system, and how you can help us in getting you running safely. (Hint: steer away from icebergs.)

Despite what the above says, you can very well cause a gack- this is a great example. They're harder to debug than the average error, and can be caused by just about anything that forces an operation that should never happen.

deleted 489 characters in body
Source Link
battery.cord
  • 8.9k
  • 8
  • 32
  • 59

It looks like you've caused a gack.

What you are looking at is what we call a GACK. A gack is our blue screen of death, our frowny Mac icon, our “the number you have reached is no longer in service”, our “Jedediah has died of dysentery”. A gack is what happens when an error got thrown within our application and we didn’t catch it and handle it.

What this means is that it’s not your fault. It’s ours. That’s why we apologize in that message. Sorry!

This friendly message is the above-water portion of a huge iceberg of functionality. The numbers you see are part of an elaborate system for efficiently bringing these events to the attention of R&D. This post will help you understand that system, and how you can help us in getting you running safely. (Hint: steer away from icebergs.)

Despite what the above says, you can very well cause a gack- this is a great example.

If you were to call this soql:

[SELECT Id, Name FROM Account LIMIT 1].Name

Which can be translated to:

sObject.get('Name');

That would be perfectly valid. But apex has no way of checking soql return types when compiling (as far as I know). So instead of trying to get a field value on a single record, you're trying They're harder to do:

List<sObject>.get('Name');

This is pretty illegaldebug than the average error, and causes a weird operation to occur- maybe it fails during compile time, maybe during runtime, maybe it's a type issue (since get exists on lists but needscan be caused by just about anything that forces an Integer as a parameter) but regardless, it causes a gackoperation that should never happen.

It looks like you've caused a gack.

What you are looking at is what we call a GACK. A gack is our blue screen of death, our frowny Mac icon, our “the number you have reached is no longer in service”, our “Jedediah has died of dysentery”. A gack is what happens when an error got thrown within our application and we didn’t catch it and handle it.

What this means is that it’s not your fault. It’s ours. That’s why we apologize in that message. Sorry!

This friendly message is the above-water portion of a huge iceberg of functionality. The numbers you see are part of an elaborate system for efficiently bringing these events to the attention of R&D. This post will help you understand that system, and how you can help us in getting you running safely. (Hint: steer away from icebergs.)

Despite what the above says, you can very well cause a gack- this is a great example.

If you were to call this soql:

[SELECT Id, Name FROM Account LIMIT 1].Name

Which can be translated to:

sObject.get('Name');

That would be perfectly valid. But apex has no way of checking soql return types when compiling (as far as I know). So instead of trying to get a field value on a single record, you're trying to do:

List<sObject>.get('Name');

This is pretty illegal, and causes a weird operation to occur- maybe it fails during compile time, maybe during runtime, maybe it's a type issue (since get exists on lists but needs an Integer as a parameter) but regardless, it causes a gack.

It looks like you've caused a gack.

What you are looking at is what we call a GACK. A gack is our blue screen of death, our frowny Mac icon, our “the number you have reached is no longer in service”, our “Jedediah has died of dysentery”. A gack is what happens when an error got thrown within our application and we didn’t catch it and handle it.

What this means is that it’s not your fault. It’s ours. That’s why we apologize in that message. Sorry!

This friendly message is the above-water portion of a huge iceberg of functionality. The numbers you see are part of an elaborate system for efficiently bringing these events to the attention of R&D. This post will help you understand that system, and how you can help us in getting you running safely. (Hint: steer away from icebergs.)

Despite what the above says, you can very well cause a gack- this is a great example. They're harder to debug than the average error, and can be caused by just about anything that forces an operation that should never happen.

Source Link
battery.cord
  • 8.9k
  • 8
  • 32
  • 59

It looks like you've caused a gack.

What you are looking at is what we call a GACK. A gack is our blue screen of death, our frowny Mac icon, our “the number you have reached is no longer in service”, our “Jedediah has died of dysentery”. A gack is what happens when an error got thrown within our application and we didn’t catch it and handle it.

What this means is that it’s not your fault. It’s ours. That’s why we apologize in that message. Sorry!

This friendly message is the above-water portion of a huge iceberg of functionality. The numbers you see are part of an elaborate system for efficiently bringing these events to the attention of R&D. This post will help you understand that system, and how you can help us in getting you running safely. (Hint: steer away from icebergs.)

Despite what the above says, you can very well cause a gack- this is a great example.

If you were to call this soql:

[SELECT Id, Name FROM Account LIMIT 1].Name

Which can be translated to:

sObject.get('Name');

That would be perfectly valid. But apex has no way of checking soql return types when compiling (as far as I know). So instead of trying to get a field value on a single record, you're trying to do:

List<sObject>.get('Name');

This is pretty illegal, and causes a weird operation to occur- maybe it fails during compile time, maybe during runtime, maybe it's a type issue (since get exists on lists but needs an Integer as a parameter) but regardless, it causes a gack.