In a custom program I call the retail material transaction (change, so MM42).
The user could change attribute values ( meaning ATWRT ) which are placed on the screen.
The debugger tells me, that there are a lot of variables, some seem to be the right ones, IF ONLY ONE atwrt of an atnam is changed. In case of multiple atwrt changes on more than one atnam, my dirty assign would only know the LAST ATNAM and it's new ATWRT.
This question adresses those developers, which might have already done this and may give me a hint, which one of the dozens of tables could track all the atnams and atwrts and also being possible to assign it in my calling program,after the MM42 returns.
IS there anybody in here, who may have done this, so I could save a bit of (maybe even lost) time ?
Related
Not sure if this is the right place, but as Stackoverflow is my go to place, I will start here.
I have a swift app that has a main menu that lists several "groups" of marines species, i.e. Fish, Sharks, Corals. After selecting a "group" item on the menu, this triggers to a subGroup menu that will list subgroup items, like Soft Corals, Hard Corals and so on. The system works most fine, however there are a few subgroups (out of 196) that when selected crash the app with an beyond bounds error.
I have checked the database many times now as I know which subGroups cause the crash. I cannot find anything odd there.
So, that leaves code or SQL
My app quite large, so posting code would not be practical.
I think the issue might be in my SQL file where the wrong data might be called up and I came across this line. Can someone please give me a laymen term of what is happening here? I question the "RL_SubTypes_for_Groups" statement.
static let SelectSubCategoriesNamesForGroupName = "SELECT RL_Subgroups.name FROM RL_Subgroups INNER JOIN RL_SubTypes_for_Groups ON RL_Subgroups.rl_groups_id = RL_SubTypes_for_Groups.id WHERE RL_SubTypes_for_Groups.name = \"%#\" ORDER BY UPPER(RL_Subgroups.name) ASC"
Can some say if there is something jumping out here that seems wrong?
I'm working with legacy code and ran across something that I haven't been able to explain after several days of looking up tutorials and handbooks for GW Basic: a variable (P9%) is used in a comparison on line 530 (IF P9% <> 0) before the code would reach its definition on line 860. It's not a complex piece of code, only ~1200 lines total, so I am confident that I haven't missed any goto or gosub or anything that would reach 860 earlier than this comparison.
I am curious as to how this has been effecting the program as it runs. Most of my experience is with c++ where this sort of thing wouldn't compile, and if it did an unassigned variable could potentially contain anything that would fit, but I have no idea what kind of default assignment is given to a variable in Basic.
It has been many years since I wrote much in gwbasic!
If I remember correctly the variable is assigned a zero value in that case. Gwbasic (and Qbasic I think) assigns a default value to all variables when first referenced, this is usually zero or the empty string for a string variable.
Interestingly when creating an array using the DIM statement, all the items in the array are also initialised this way.
Even with this mechanism it is usually better to initialise a variable, just to be clear what is happening.
Many programmers of the era writing for gwbasic omitted as much as they could to minimise the amount of memory used by the program instructions so they had more for other stuff. So that may be why it's not initialised.
This might be an odd question, but I'm looking for a word to use in a function name. I'm normally good at coming up with succinct, meaningful function names, but this one has me stumped so I thought I'd appeal for help.
The function will take some desired state as an argument and compare it to the current state. If no change is needed, the function will exit normally without doing anything. Otherwise, the function will take some action to achieve the desired state.
For example, if wanted to make sure the front door was closed, i might say:
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
What word or term should use in place of the something? I'd like it to be short, readable, and minimize the astonishment factor.
A couple clarifying points...
I would want someone calling the function to intuitively know they didn't need to wrap the function an 'if' that checks the current state. For example, this would be bad:
if my_house.front_door_is_open():
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
Also, they should know that the function won't throw an exception if the desired state matches the current state. So this should never happen:
try:
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
except DoorWasAlreadyClosedException:
pass
Here are some options I've considered:
my_house.set_front_door('closed')
my_house.setne_front_door('closed') # ne=not equal, from the setne x86 instruction
my_house.ensure_front_door('closed')
my_house.configure_front_door('closed')
my_house.update_front_door('closed')
my_house.make_front_door('closed')
my_house.remediate_front_door('closed')
And I'm open to other forms, but most I've thought of don't improve readability. Such as...
my_house.ensure_front_door_is('closed')
my_house.conditionally_update_front_door('closed')
my_house.change_front_door_if_needed('closed')
Thanks for any input!
I would use "ensure" as its succinct, descriptive and to the point:
EnsureCustomerExists(CustomerID)
EnsureDoorState(DoorStates.Closed)
EnsureUserInterface(GUIStates.Disabled)
Interesting question!
From the info that you have supplied, it seems to me that setstate (or simply set, if you are setting other things than states) would be fine, though ensure is good if you want to really emphasize the redundancy of an if.
To me it is however perfectly intuitive that setting a state does not throw an exception, or require an if. Think of setting the state of any other variable:
In C:
int i;
i = 5; // Would you expect this to throw an exception if i was already 5?
// Would you write
if (i != 5)
i = 5;
// ?
Also it only takes about one sentence to document this behaviour:
The function does nothing if the
current state equals the requested
state.
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, if it is really important to you (for some reason) that the user is not confused about this, I would in fact pick ensure (or some other non-standard name). Why? Because as a user, a name like that would make me scratch my head a bit and look up the documentation ("This is more than just an ordinary set-function, apparently").
EDIT 2: Only you know how you design your programs, and which function name fits in best. From what you are saying, it seems like your setting functions sometimes throw exceptions, and you need to name a setting function that doesn't - e.g. set_missile_target. If that is the case, I think you should consider the set_if, set_when, set_cond or cond_set names. Which one would kind of depend on the rest of your code. I would also add that one line of documentation (or two, if you're generous), which clarifies the whole thing.
For example:
// Sets missile target if current target is not already the requested target,
// in which case it does nothing. No exceptions are thrown.
function cond_set_missile_target ()
or function cond_set_MissileTarget ()
or function condSet_MissileTarget ()
or function condSetMissileTarget ()
ensure is not so bad, but to me it implies only that there is additional logic required to set the state (e.g. multiple states tied together, or other complications). It helps to make the user avoid adding unnecessary ifs, but it does not help much with the exception issue. I would expect an ensure function to throw an exception sooner than a set function, since the ensure function clearly has more responsibilities for, well, ensuring that this setting operation is in fact done right.
I'd go for ensure for the function you describe. I'd also use camelCase, but I suppose you may be in a language that prefers underscores.
You could always document (shock!) your API so that others don't make the mistakes you describe.
First, i admit all the things i will ask are about our homework but i assure you i am not asking without struggling at least two hours.
Description: We are supposed to add a field called max_cpu_percent to task_struct data type and manipulate process scheduling algorithm so that processes can not use an higher percentage of the cpu.
for example if i set max_cpu_percent field as 20 for the process firefox, firefox will not be able to use more than 20% of the cpu.
We wrote a system call to set max_cpu_percent field. Now we need to see if the system call works or not but we could not get the value of the max_cpu_percent field from a user-spaced program.
Can we do this? and how?
We tried proc/pid/ etc can we get the value using this util?
By the way, We may add additional questions here if we could not get rid of something else
Thanks All
Solution:
The reason was we did not modify the code block writing the output to the proc queries.
There are some methods in array.c file (fs/proc/array.c) we modified the function so that also print the newly added fields value. kernel is now compiling we'll see the result after about an hour =)
It Worked...
(If you simply extended getrlimit/setrlimit, then you'd be done by now…)
There's already a mechanism where similar parts of task_struct are exposed: /proc/$PID/stat (and /proc/$PID/$TID/stat). Look for functions proc_tgid_stat and proc_tid_stat. You can add new fields to the ends of these files.
I have a task management program with a "Urgency" field. Valid values are Int16 currently mapped to 1 (High), 2 (Medium), 3 (Low), 4 (None) and 99 (Closed). The urgency field is used to rank tasks as well as alter the look of the items in the list and detail view.
When a user is editing or adding a new task they select or view the urgency in a ComboBox. A Converter passes Strings to replace the Ints. The urgency collection is so simple I did not make it a table in the database, instead it is a, ObservableCollection(Int16) that is populated by a method.
Since the same screen may be used to view a closed task the "Closed" urgency must be in the ItemsSource but I do not want the user to be able to select it. In order to prevent the user from being able to select that item in the ComboBox but still be able to see it if the item in the database has that value should I...
Manually disable the item in the ComboBox in code or Xaml (I doubt it)
Change the Urgency collection from an Int16 to an Object with a Selectable Property that the isEnabled property of the ComboBoxItem Binds to.
Do as in 2 but also separate the urgency information into its own table in the database with a foreign key in the Tasks table
None of the above (I suspect this is the correct answer)
I ask this because this is a learning project (My first real WPF and first ever MVVM project). I know there is rarely one Right way to do something but I want to make sure I am learning in a reasonable manner since it if far harder to Unlearn bad habits
Thanks
Mike
I would favor option 2. Sounds very MVVM-stylish to me.
Option 3 would be favorable, when there are other applications or when you have reports accessing the "Urgency" field. Reason: Otherwise you will need to duplicate the knowledge of mapping between Int16 and their meaning. Move the knowledge to the database to keep it in one place.
Maybe consider Enums to make the code more expressive:
enum Urgency { High=1, Medium=2, Low=3, Closed=99 };
This way you will have something nice looking for evaluating the IsEnabled property like this:
if (urgency == Urgency.Closed) return false;
When you need to store the numeric value of the enum, you will need to make a cast to Int16 beforehand.
I think that I'd first fix this in the view. Have a TextBlock that displays "Closed", and a ComboBox that displays the other values, and then use a data trigger to set IsVisible on both depending on whether or not Urgency is 99.
I'd do this not because it's the best technical solution (it's probably not) but because it's (possibly) the best UI solution. If the user can't ever modify a closed item, it's a little misleading to display "Closed" even in a disabled ComboBox, since the ComboBox means, visually, "Here's something you can change." That it's disabled just prompts the user to wonder what he has to do to enable it. Using a TextBlock is an unambiguous way of saying "this is just how it is."