Re: dammit
On Jun 7, 2004, at 10:27 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: I hate to lose my cool, but I can't get a day's work done with the current state of the error messages coming from the v2.6 engine. I can usually sort through my own code without it, but I've inherited a large and nasty code base written in alien logic, and there's no reliable means of identifying the source of errors. Am I the only one who finds this a show-stopper? Have y'all worked out a solution and forgot to share? :) How does the Rev IDE cope with it? If there was ever an argument for an emergency dot-dot release, making it possible to know what errors are occurring would seem the irrefutable case It is a massive problem for both IDEs. I usually have to go back to MC 2.5 to figure out obscure problems. They show up correctly once I transition. I don't know about everyone else, but I have three folder with different version of MC and Rev to make it through the day. Lots of time is wasted moving from one version to the other. I only pray that 2.3 gives us a working engine. x-tad-smaller-- Best regards, Mark Talluto http://www.canelasoftware.com/x-tad-smaller___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: dammit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 08.06.2004 07:27:18 metacard-bounces wrote: ...I can't get a day's work done with the current state of the error messages coming from the v2.6 engine. ... Am I the only one who finds this a show-stopper? Have y'all worked out a solution and forgot to share? :) How does the Rev IDE cope with it? what is the problem? I was hoping to be able to provide a URL to the Bugzilla report that has all the details, but alas I can't figure out how to get my old reports there. I suppose the upside is that it may mean it's fixed, but without being able to track my reports I can't know. I brief, if you look at the raw data passed with the errorDialog message you'll find a great many erroneous entries, usually with error offsets of 0 and no errorObject. However, simply deleting all such references will not provide a reliable workaround, as there are times when valid error will have that pattern. The symptom is simple enough: something causes a script execution error but the error message as displayed in the Execution Error dialog has no possible relationship to the actual issue (usually either Expected a Boolean or Not an integer in cases where no Booleans or integers should come into play). This can be pinned down to the engine with a simple test: generate a script error in MC IDE 2.6b with the v2.6 engine, and repeat the same error with the same IDE using the v2.5.1 engine. In v2.5.1 the error message makes sense, in v2.6 it does not. Adding to the mystery, in most cases where a mismatched error message is presented, all you need to do to get the correct error message to display is to repeat the actions that led to the error -- the second time you should get a reasonable message. I've compared the error message text strings in the MC IDE 2.6b and RR 2.2 and they are identical, so we can rule out a repeat of the debacle from years ago in which the error offsets changed between builds. Given all this, one of two things is true: - All Rev developers using v2.2 are similarly affected, but are too shy to complain. - RunRev has implemented a workaround for the bug in the v2.2 IDE, so it does not affect users of that IDE. I just did a simple test in Rev 2.2: 1. Create a new stack 2. Add a button 3. Set the script of the button to: on mouseup dfgsdgf end mouseup 4. Click the button Result: the error message reports: value is not a boolean (true or false) It should of course be can't find handler. So it appears to be equally show-stopping for all Transcript users. I'll take a poll on the use-rev list to see how many there have noticed that they aren't able to know what's happening with their scripts. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: dammit
Mark Talluto wrote: On Jun 7, 2004, at 10:27 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: I hate to lose my cool, but I can't get a day's work done with the current state of the error messages coming from the v2.6 engine. I can usually sort through my own code without it, but I've inherited a large and nasty code base written in alien logic, and there's no reliable means of identifying the source of errors. Am I the only one who finds this a show-stopper? Have y'all worked out a solution and forgot to share? :) How does the Rev IDE cope with it? If there was ever an argument for an emergency dot-dot release, making it possible to know what errors are occurring would seem the irrefutable case It is a massive problem for both IDEs. I usually have to go back to MC 2.5 to figure out obscure problems. They show up correctly once I transition. I don't know about everyone else, but I have three folder with different version of MC and Rev to make it through the day. Lots of time is wasted moving from one version to the other. I only pray that 2.3 gives us a working engine. Too far down the road for me. I need the native appearances in Rev v2.2 (MC v2.6), and can't put off all development until Rev v2.3 appears. One solution might be to make copy that one fix into the v2.2 code base and release a v2.2.1 engine to the FTP site. Would that get your vote? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: dammit
On Jun 8, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Too far down the road for me. I need the native appearances in Rev v2.2 (MC v2.6), and can't put off all development until Rev v2.3 appears. One solution might be to make copy that one fix into the v2.2 code base and release a v2.2.1 engine to the FTP site. Would that get your vote? I'll always take a bug fix as soon as I can get it. My hand is up for the vote. x-tad-smaller-- Best regards, Mark Talluto http://www.canelasoftware.com/x-tad-smaller___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: dammit
I, too am a bit disappointed with the engine debug messages in engine 2.6. Many times my scripts don't seem to want to compile on the first try, and issue a 'bad factor' error, but do alright on the next try. If this is supposed to be fixed in the 2.3 engine, has anyone yet checked? I also lose complete use of the ctrl key in the IDE at times as well. And sometimes Ctrl-A (Select All) when in browser mode and focus in a text fld selects all the controls on the card instead of the text in the fld. Hoping this will all be worked out in 2.3. (I use XP) Like many of you, IMO, some of this stuff is should be obvious to anyone using the IDE to write the IDE, I would expect it to be fixed in the next version --bug report or not. Unfortunately, tracking it down to a recipe, for me, can take quite a bit of time. Though, if it's not fixed in the beta version of 2.3, I'll certainly do so :-) I thought Ben had a sensible post recently. In it, he expressed a view for RR to concentrate on fixing bugs and tweaking the IDE, rather than adding features. I agree. It's a great product as it stands currently, and a round or two of fine tuning would certainly go a long way! In fact, Jim Lyons post regarding his disappointing demo is a reminder to just how fragile the 'buy' decision is for many. Fixing the existing code base IMO must take priority over new features. To that end, I would like to see (like Scott did) a stable version of RR IDE which is changed ever so rarely, and a more user-friendly, feature-rich version of the IDE which can be used for newbies. By separating the two, it seems the Pros aren't saddled with the overhead of testing and working through new IDE feature sets, and can easily get on with the business at hand...creating great software with RR! I know the guys at RR are overworked, understaffed, and sometimes underappreciated. And, they are trying their best, which is important. Let's hope 2.3 goes a long way to helping us all out :-)! -Chipp ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: dammit
On 6/8/04 2:48 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: I, too am a bit disappointed with the engine debug messages in engine 2.6. Many times my scripts don't seem to want to compile on the first try, and issue a 'bad factor' error, but do alright on the next try. If this is supposed to be fixed in the 2.3 engine, has anyone yet checked? I was in IM with a team member about a week ago, and he said it had been fixed. The engine was throwing superfluous error strings, which has now been corrected. Or they believe they have done so. Those who also participate in the Rev mailing list should respond to Richard's inquiry about the error message problem, since just this morning Kevin M. said he didn't think it affected Rev, only MC. He needs to know. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: dammit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 08.06.2004 07:27:18 metacard-bounces wrote: ...I can't get a day's work done with the current state of the error messages coming from the v2.6 engine. ... Am I the only one who finds this a show-stopper? Have y'all worked out a solution and forgot to share? :) How does the Rev IDE cope with it? what is the problem? I was hoping to be able to provide a URL to the Bugzilla report that has all the details, but alas I can't figure out how to get my old reports there. I suppose the upside is that it may mean it's fixed, but without being able to track my reports I can't know. It took me a while but I managed to find it http://www.runrev.com/revolution/developers/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=1445 It is indeed marked as resolved. I wonder whether it is already in 2.3a3. One solution might be to make copy that one fix into the v2.2 code base and release a v2.2.1 engine to the FTP site. Would that get your vote? Would get mine :) Robert ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: dammit
On Jun 8, 2004, at 3:40 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote: It is indeed marked as resolved. I wonder whether it is already in 2.3a3. One solution might be to make copy that one fix into the v2.2 code base and release a v2.2.1 engine to the FTP site. Would that get your vote? Would get mine :) Not sure if anyone has run into this, but I find the errors to be blank or wrong if the script containing the error is password protected. Just another clue to the problem. x-tad-smaller-- Best regards, Mark Talluto http://www.canelasoftware.com/x-tad-smaller___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: dammit
On Jun 8, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Mark Talluto wrote: On Jun 8, 2004, at 3:40 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote: It is indeed marked as resolved. I wonder whether it is already in 2.3a3. One solution might be to make copy that one fix into the v2.2 code base and release a v2.2.1 engine to the FTP site. Would that get your vote? Would get mine :) Not sure if anyone has run into this, but I find the errors to be blank or wrong if the script containing the error is password protected. Just another clue to the problem. Forgot to mention that I bugzillaed this one right now: 1671 x-tad-smaller-- Best regards, Mark Talluto http://www.canelasoftware.com/x-tad-smaller___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
