New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ArgumentOutOfRangeException [DNET938] #861
Comments
Commented by: @cincuranet First try to replicate it with latest version, 6.4.0 is quite old. |
Commented by: Christian Mayer (ascmayer) Hi, we have the same issue with Verion 7.1.1.0 System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException: operation=509011189 The operation number varies. Thanks |
Commented by: @cincuranet Can you replicate it? |
Commented by: Christian Mayer (byzo_mc) We tried to replicate it on our dev machines without success. |
Commented by: @cincuranet That's unfortunate. :( Thanks for the effort. I'll close it for now and I'll reopen when somebody has the same problem and can provide more clues. |
Hello. Our case is this - we have a stored procedure in our database that does some complex calculations.
In our .net web api server we have an async method that execute this procedure and where the error occurred. Because of the 3 returning values, we use the procedure like this;
because we execute the procedure multiple times in one transaction and we want to save some time from constantly creating objects and parameters . At some point in our code, we execute the command in an async method: First we initiate procedure's parameters from method's parameters.
then we execute it:
So two days ago, our QA team reported that one scenario started to give errors: System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException The value for operation in the most cases is 0, but some times it's something random. During my debugging of the problem I've seen values like 435, 250666 and bigger.
The Fb's client's version when this began was 9.0.2. We've updated it to 9.1.0 - but the error was still there. So I've started to debug the problem. So I've decided to add at the beginning of the method simple At the same time the QA team reported that all other scenarios using this method are working just fine. They didn't have the "fix", they were still using the unmodified code. in the main method both methods are called like this
The first method is used to add an array of elements into the database, calling another async method for each element like this:
The change made in it was removing the await keyword from the AddAsync call
After returning it to its old version with await, the error in the second method was gone and the I don't know if this will help you to find the problem, but maybe it will be helpful clue for others that get this error in the future to find problems in their code. |
Submitted by: Krosaci (krosaci)
Hello, I ran on specific problem on Firebird net provider (ver. 6.4.0) . Sometimes (once or two times a month) on some machines provider throws after calling Begin Transaction ArgumentOutOfRangeException. Look at callstack:
System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException: operation=159
Parameter name: operation
at FirebirdSql.Data.Client.Managed.GdsConnection.ProcessOperation(Int32 operation, XdrStream xdr)
at FirebirdSql.Data.Client.Managed.Version10.GdsDatabase.ReadSingleResponse()
at FirebirdSql.Data.Client.Managed.Version10.GdsDatabase.ReadResponse()
at FirebirdSql.Data.Client.Managed.Version10.GdsDatabase.ReadGenericResponse()
at FirebirdSql.Data.Client.Managed.Version10.GdsTransaction.BeginTransaction(TransactionParameterBuffer tpb)
at FirebirdSql.Data.Client.Managed.Version10.GdsDatabase.BeginTransaction(TransactionParameterBuffer tpb)
at FirebirdSql.Data.FirebirdClient.FbTransaction.BeginTransaction(FbTransactionOptions options)
at FirebirdSql.Data.FirebirdClient.FbConnectionInternal.BeginTransaction(FbTransactionOptions options, String transactionName)
at FirebirdSql.Data.FirebirdClient.FbConnection.BeginTransaction(FbTransactionOptions options)
Or sometimes it throws similar exception but with parameter operation =-16777216.
We are using Firebird server 2.5.4.
Thanks for any advice to resolve this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: