Hello Richard,

Thanks again for your feedback with my issue. 

So - as for the actual issue. When the Putfile function invokes the Save As 
dialog box - the spot in the dialog box where the actual File Name appears - it 
instead shows up as Blank - even though an actual filename is passed in. And, a 
guy in QA who was testing for another development issue - he came across this 
Bug. He found it peculiar and reported it as a Bug - even though others who 
have been using the system for a long time probably saw the problem happen - 
then just ignored the issue. And, even though the filename is blank - if you 
simply select a file from the main file selection area of the Dialog - then the 
filename does indeed get displayed as the currently selected file. 

As such, in the end - it's a quirk of how the PUTFILE Function is working. It 
throws No Error - and there is NO actual Value to test for When the quirk 
happens - and that's why I was saying that the usage of ASSERT or the TRY...  
commands could not really be used. FYI - regarding the directory where I am 
expecting to be sitting when the program runs - it IS in that folder. I simply 
used the SET DEFAULT command for testing at the Command prompt. 

Regarding your other suggestions like Concatenating and such - I have not tried 
them yet. I will try them shortly to see if that has any impact on the problem. 
At the moment I am working on another issue - so I will have to come back to 
This problem as soon as I can and try your suggestions.

Thanks again for your input. 

-K-

-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Kaye
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: A Quirk w/the PUTFILE Function?

To be honest I never had a 100% clear picture in my head of what your oddity 
is. :-)

If you can reproduce this issue in the dev environment and can test a logical 
condition then ASSERTS are way better than SET STEP ON, imo. For example, let's 
say you are expecting to be in a certain location before your PUTFILE runs. You 
can do something like this:

<untested pseudo-code>
ASSERT CURDIR()=[my expected location] MESSAGE [You're not where you think you 
are! Debug now?]
PUTFILE(...)

This will give you the option to invoke the debugger and then evaluate the 
environment as it is at that point in time. 

Have you tried concatenating the full path with the file name as the 2nd 
PUTFILE param instead of just the file name? Added the extension to the name? 
Use a memvar for the output file name instead of a literal string?

Have you investigated using Windows APIs instead of PUTFILE?

--

rk
-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Wendt
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: A Quirk w/the PUTFILE Function?

I never used an ASSERT before. So - I looked at the online help - and I don't 
think it will help in this situation. Also - I don't think the TRY would work 
either - since the TRY is used to handle trapping of an error. And, although a 
strange behavior occurs with regards to my issue - it doesn't actually throw an 
error of any kind...

-K-

-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Kaye
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: A Quirk w/the PUTFILE Function?

ASSERTs and TRY..CATCH may help you hunt this down. 

--

rk 


[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/80838f1ca795b14ea1af48659f35166f1b9...@drexch02.corp.globetax.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to