I am an automation + manual tester. I would like to understand the reason how understanding the logs of an application(which i am working on) help me in improving my testing skills.
By viewing logs you will get some ideas about the error, if it is data level fix you can release and fix directly without dev team help.
In Java some times Runtime exception will occur, it will not convey messages to you in the interface about the exact problem. By viewing log you can get some ideas about the Runtime exception.
You see, I am really new into android, but the reason logs are important is because they can help you track down issues, such as Java.NullPointerExceptions and can help you trace back to where the issues were. I think there is also a way to create an error dialogue in the log, which can tell you that an error occurred. This is particularly essential in debugging, where you need to solve a problem in your app. I hope this helps, and best of luck. I think you can search up how to write stuff into a log at certain areas. I think the way on how to Log is to access Log class. http://developer.android.com/reference/android/util/Log.html
Related
I have been currently following the Documentation and getting the track-changes-suggestion-data-mismatch error, i am unsure how to debug it, any help would be much appreciated.
I have compared both the data(html) which is generated by CKEditor and also the data fetched from the server, there is no difference.
If anyone can shed some light as to which data the error is talking about it would be great.
When building an application in Visual Studio. It shows the following error when exceeding the error count
fatal error C1003: error count exceeds 100; stopping compilation
Is there a way to increase the error limit?
This limitation is hardcoded. Here is the post from the MSFT employee in the microsoft.public.vsnet.general group dated 2006 (look for 'Fatal Error C1003'):
Hi,
Unfortunately this 100 limitation is
hard coded and cannot be changed. It's
just inpractical to keep all errors
information around since one error may
cause other several errors.
I hope you understand the rational
behind this design by our product
team. However, if you still have
concerns about this, please feel free
to submit your feedback at
http://connect.microsoft.com/Main/content/content.aspx?ContentID=2220
which is monitored by our product
team. Thank you for your
understanding.
Sincerely, Walter Wang
(waw...#online.microsoft.com, remove
'online.') Microsoft Online Community
Support"
I don't think so. VS basically reports all errors it encounters during compilations. There might be some erroneous parts of the code that make the compiler getting caught in an infinite "error" loop.
The limit was implemented to avoid that. In most cases the 100 errors you get are just the same error reported over and over again. What would be the sense in increasing the number of repetitions?
Maybe you can post the code snippet where the error occurs first, so we can help you fix it.
I believe that it is a hard-coded limit, so no.
As others have commented, it's difficult to understand what you want to achieve by this.
At the end of the day, you'll have to fix them all, so get stuck in and start fixing them. Eventually, you'll get below 100, and you can start counting them.
It is not normally valuable to report the actual number of errors when this occurs. Most of the time, when you get C1003, it's actually only a few real errors, leading to a massive chain of other errors.
(e.g.)
If there is an error in a .h file, that error will be reported in every .cpp file that #includes it.
If there is an error that prevents any kind of identifier being defined (e.g. a class, variable, method name), then every time you try to use it later on, an error will be reported.
Workaround to reduce number of reported errors:
rename cl.exe to cl-orig.exe
roll your own cl.exe that launches cl-orig.exe, capturing its stdout / stderr
parse stderr, looking for error messages and counting them
breaks after first n errors
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682499(v=vs.85).aspx for some hints.
I also have a project like this: sometimes Visual Studio decides there is a lot to do, emits 100 really irrelevant messages about other parts of the solution and aborts the build because it reached the message limit without working on the project I'm interested on.
The workaround we have found is to use msbuild to build the solution from a command prompt: the Use MSBuild walkthrough outlines the steps. msbuild outputs all messages to the console and once the build completes we can work and debug again in Visual Studio. Not ideal, but it lets us complete the task at hand.
I have a problem with several references in my VB.NET project.
For example I have this line of code:
Dim m As New Chilkat.Email
It comes from the library "ChilkatDotNet45.dll".
When I click on "References" and locate this dll, I can see that it has the settings "Use local copy" and "Do not include interop types".
When I switch to Release mode, the compiler tells me that "Chilkat.EMail" is not defined.
I have this problem with several DLLs, so it is not specific to Chilkat.
Can somebody tell me what I did wrong?
Thank you.
One of the standard approaches to solving any programming-related issue is trying to reduce the scope of the investigation. If you have a big project, in which something doesn't work, try to create a smaller project, and try to replicate desired functionality in it. Reduce as much as possible, down to a brand new project with maybe 5-10 lines of code in it.
If you were unable to solve your problem after making a reduced test case, now it's good time to post it on StackOverflow. I am usually reducing problems while writing a question on SO (not before, as one might think), constantly thinking "ok, is it minimized enough"; and this is how 90% of the questions never get posted - I often find a solution along the way of reducing my question to bare bones. :)
In your case, can you build a simplified project which has this problem and post a link here? We could then try switching Debug to Release on our machines and see if the we can reproduce. There are too many options to do the guesswork.
We've got an application that on rare occasions crashes with the error:
Missing proxy for identifier IBFilesOwner
We understand it to be implying that it can't find File's Owner for one of our nibs (xibs) but we've been through and confirmed they all have valid ones set.
There's practically zero on Google, can anyone offer any suggestions?
Thanks.
Hey I had the same problem and it turned out that I was doing some threading and I was executing code that should be on the main thread on another thread.
I don't know what you're doing in your app, but hopefully that might give you a clue.
If you share some code we can try and figure out what's going on.
Options:
1) When there is bad input, the app crashes and prints a message to the console saying what happened
2) When there is bad input, the app throws away the input and continues on as if nothing happened (though nothing the problem in a separate log file).
While 2 may seem like the obvious solution, the app is an engine and framework for game development, so if a user is writing something and does something wrong, it may be beneficial for that problem to be immediately obvious (app crashing) rather than it being ignored and the user potentially forgetting to check the log to see if there were any problems (may forget if the programmed behavior isn't very noticeable on screen, so he doesn't catch that it is missing).
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. It really depends on the situation and how bad the input is.
However, since you specifically mentioned this is for an engine or framework, then I would say it should never crash. It should raise exceptions or provide notable return codes or whatever is relevant for your environment, and then the application developer using your framework can decide how to handle. The framework itself should not make this decision for all apps that utilize the framework.
I would use exceptions if the language you are using allows them..
Since your framework will be used by other developers you shouldn't really constraint any approach, you should let the developers catch your exception (or errors) and manage what to do..
Generally speaking nothing should crash on user input. Whether the app can continue with the error logged or stop right there is something that is useful to be able to configure.
If it's too easy to ignore errors, people will just do so, instead of fixing them. On the other hand, sometimes an error is not something you can fix, or it's totally unrelated to what you're working on, and it's holding up your current task. So it depends a bit on who the user is.
Logging libraries often let you switch logs on and off by module and severity. It might be that you want something similar, to let users configure the "stop on error" behaviour for certain modules or only when above a certain level of severity.
Personally I would avoid the crash approach and opt for (2) that said make sure that the error is detected and logged and above all avoid any swallowing of errors (e.g. empty catch).
It is always helpful to have some kind of tracing/logging module, for instance later when you are doing performance tuning or general troubleshooting.
It depends on what the problem is. When I'm programming and writing error handling I use this as my mantra:
Is this exception really exceptional?
Meaning, is the error in input or whatever condition is "not normal" recoverable? In the case of a game, a File not Found exception on a texture could be recoverable and you could show a default texture so you know something broke.
However, if you have textures in a compressed file and you keep getting checksum errors, that would be an exceptional exception and I would crash the game with the details.
It really boils down to: can the application keep running without issue?
The one exception to this rule though (ha ha) is, if something is corrupted you can no longer trust your validation methods and you should crash as quickly as you can to prevent the corruption from spreading.