i want to be able to execute code when swaylock gets locked and something different when unlocking (eg swaylock was locked and i entered my password correctly). everything i found is a way to execute code after swaylock gets locked, which is possible with:
swaylock -f;somethingToExecute
the -f means "daemonize", this is the reaason why ...;somethingToExecute gets execute after locking the session. The other way around is the same without daemonizing the process, so everything behind the ; will be executed after swaylock exited (which means "the session is unlocked" because the swaylock-process is running as long as the session is locked).
But what if i want to execute code when locking AND unlocking the session?
So...Sometimes one is just thinking way too complicated. In fact the answer is already inside the question:
somethingToExecuteWhenLocking; swaylock; somethingToExecuteWhenUnlocking
Related
I have an SQL file containing several commands, when I need to make a correction to my application database that the application can't yet do, I use DBVis to select and execute the command I need (e.g. to delete an incorrect entry). Problem is, the button to run the whole page is right next to the button to run a selected command. So I just dropped and re-created my table, losing all my data. Is there a way to undo this?
I'm looking to either 'undo' each command until I get back to the right place, or revert back to yesterday, where I know everything was correct.
Thanks!
Yes, you can if...
your administration tool did set autocommit=OFF by default, you can
just execute a ROLLBACK (or just shutdown your administration tool)
If latter doesn't work, check if your binary log was enabled, and restore with mysqlbin log tool
If none of the above mentioned solution works, use your (probably not existent) backup for restoring
I need to remove a file even if it is used by a running process.
Firstly, of course the process needs to be shut down, and after that the file should be deleted, if it exists.
I'm using the following code:
Sample:
Dim Processes() As Process = Process.GetProcessesByName("test")
For Each Process As Process In Processes
Process.Kill()
Next
My.Computer.FileSystem.DeleteFile(C:\ProgramFiles\Test\test.exe)
I tried the code above, it does not work, file is still running and also it is not removed! Can you please provide a reliable solution to this issue?
Thanks.
It may take a little while for the after-effects of Process.Kill() to complete.
If you add a delay between the Kill command and the File.Delete, such as Threading.Thread.Sleep(2000), it may be sufficient for the latter to complete.
A more robust solution might involve repeatedly attempting to delete the file, up to some reasonable number of tries, with a small time delay between attempts.
I have a VB application which is scheduled. It focuses on some cmd windows and performs sendkey actions. This works fine when I have the RDP session open, it's only when I disconnect (not logoff) that the issue occurs. (This task is running on a virtualised server).
When I open the RDP session again after the task has ran, the application has thrown an error regarding the login permissions. I presume this is because the user is locked and therefore can't perform the actions?
I need to find a way around this, any help is much appreciated!
Don't use SendKeys.
Instead, if you have a program running in a command prompt, make sure the VB.NET program is the one to open it (or them) with Process.Start, and set the RedirectStandardInput property of the ProcessStartInfo object you pass to True. Then pass commands into the process's StandardInput property as though writing to a file.
This will avoid any focus-change problems, any problems to do with locked screen sessions, most if not all potential problems with integrity levels, most if not all problems with timing, and probably some other stuff I'm not thinking of.
My application updates(running a vba script) an excel shared workbook, and since it is shared, there shouldn't be problems when someone else is using the same file at the same time. But for some reason, sometimes it simply freezes, without any error message, just freezes.
Is there a way to programatically make the application stops/closes automatically when frozen or after some minutes(In normal conditions, this updating process shouldn't take more than 1 minute)?
And, if possible, re-launch the app again automatically after some minutes for at least 5 attempts?
This way would ensure process completes succesfully.
I have had to do this same thing before but because I had an application that would look for updates to it's self on the network and then update it locally. Problem is, you cannot update the exe that is running.
What I did to get around it is to create another program that would wait a second, update the exe, then run the exe again.
Because I did this with a few different apps, I made my "Updater" generic so I could send some command line parameters and it would use those to copy and run.
If you want to try something else, you might be able to accomplish this same thing by creating a BAT file and running it. I'm not real good on BAT files so I can't help you there. But, it is another way to handle it.
I'm writing a WLST script to deploy some WAR's and an EAR. However, intermittently, the script will time out because it can't seem to get an edit lock (this script is part of a chain of many other scripts). I was wondering, is there a way to override or stop any current locks on the server? This is only a temporary solution, but in the interest of time, it will do for now.
Thanks.
You could try setting a wait period and timeout:
startEdit([waitTimeInMillis], [timeoutInMillis], [exclusive]).
Are other scripts erroring out, leaving the session locked? You could try adding exception handling around those. Also, if you have 'Automatically acquire lock" enabled in the Admin Console and you use the admin console sometimes it can cause problems if you are running scripts at the same time, even though you are not making "lock-requiring" changes.
Also, are you using the same user for the chained scripts?
Within WLST, you can pass a number as a parameter to gain an exclusive lock. This allows the script to grab a different lock than the regular one that's used whenever an administrator locks from the console. It also prevents two instances of the same script from stepping on each other.
However, this creates complex change merge scenarios that are best avoided (by processes).
Oracle's documentation on configuration locks can be found here.
Alternatively, if you want the script to temporarily relieve any existing locks regardless of the pending changes, you may as well disable change management from the console, minimizing the inconvenience caused.
WLST also contains the cancelEdit command that you could run before you startEdit. Hope one of these options pan out!
To take the configuration change lock from another administrator:
If another administrator already has the configuration lock, the following message appears: Another user already owns the lock. You will need to either wait for the lock to be released, or take the lock.
Locate the Change Center in the upper left corner of the
Administration Console.
Click Take Lock & Edit.
Make your configuration changes.
In the Change Center, click Activate Changes. Not all changes take
effect immediately. Some require a restart (see Use the Change
Center).
As long as you're running WLST as an administrative user, you should be able to jump into an existing edit session with the edit() command - I've done a quick test with two admin users, one in the Admin Console, and one using WLST, and it appears to work fine - I can see the changes in the Admin Console session inside the WLST interpreter.
You could put a very simple exception handler around your calls to startEdit that will log the exception's stack trace, but do nothing else. And then rely on the edit call to pop you into the change session.
Relying on that is going to be tricky though if another script has started an edit session and is expecting to be able to commit that change session itself - you'll be getting exceptions and unreliable behaviour across multiple invocations.