System "wget"command

[Mike Schwartz]

> From: Kenneth Brody [mailto:kenbrody at bestweb.net]
> 
> Quoting Mike Schwartz (Tue, 15 May 2007 07:57:00 -0500):
> 
> > sa(300,*)="/usr/local/bin/wget -O /dev/null -w 4 -T 5 -t 1 -q"
> <chr("39")
> > {"http://192.169.0.12/cgi-bin/callback/new_cust.pl?code=" {1 {chr("39")
> > <"1> /dev/null 2> /dev/null"
> 
> Question of style:  Why use chr("39") rather than an apostrophe?
> 
> Note on your posting:  This is obviously not a cut-and-paste, as the
> code itsn't valid.  (It's missing some quotes.)  Can you post the
> actual code?

     I don't usually use the chr("39"), but I think I did in this instance
for readability (the apostrophe's tend to disappear when I'm looking at 4
terminal sessions simultaneously on my 18" LCD screen.)  Occasionally I do
that for positive differentiation from chr("96") (back-apostrophe).

     Sorry about the missing quotes.  It took a couple of "cut and paste's"
to copy the line over, and I did accidentally remove two quotes when I was
breaking the line apart (for readability) in my original email.

> 
> >      This code notifies an accounting server that one of the people on
> > the sales server has just created a new account.
> >
> >      The "splashed" line across the screen is the full text of the WGET
> > command, for example:
> >
> > /usr/local/bin/wget -O /dev/null -w4 -T 5 -t 1 -q 'http://192.169.0.12/
> > cgi-bin/callback/new_cust.pl?code=M78982' 1> /dev/null 2> /dev/null
> 
> So you're getting the actual command line, not wget's output, sent to
> the screen?  Does the command execute on these instances?

     Yes.  The line splashed on the screen is an image of the command line,
after filePro has processed it. I did carefully re-type the splashed portion
(2 lines above this) from a screen print.   
> 
> >      I've tried "system noredraw SA" without any noticible difference.
> 
> I would expect not.  SYSTEM NOREDRAW explicitly tells filePro "leave
> whatever output is generated (if any) on the screen".  Typically, this
> is used when you know that the SYSTEM command won't send anything to
> the screen, and you want to avoid the screen "blinking" because of the
> clear-plus-redraw upon return.
> 
> SYSTEM by itself will force a screen clear and redraw upon return.

     Yes, that's what I've always expected.  I didn't use the noredraw
originally, but I played with various combinations of noredraw, video
on/off/sync, SCREEN commands, etc. 

> When the text appears on the screen, do you notice that it appears
> after filePro redraws the screen upon return?  

     I've only seen it a couple of times myself.  If there isn't an easy
answer, I'm going to do some more elaborate "stress testing" using some of
the suggestions from Brian and others to try and pin it down.

> 
> [...]
> >      ALSO:  I don't recall how to force filePro to completely redraw a
> > screen.  "Display" only redraws the data, but the field names and static
> > graphics are still missing.  "SCREEN newcust" doesn't force a complete
> > redraw, probably because filePro thinks, "hey!  I'm already on screen
> > "newcust", so I don't really need to redraw it."
> 
> Does pressing Ctrl-L redraw the screen properly?  If so, you may be
> able to force (another) redraw using PUSHKEY "[DRAW]".  However, as
> filePro has already cleared and redrawn the screen, this should be
> a no-op.  (Well, aside from the visual "blink" for the second redraw.)
> 
> [...]
> >     I've also tried to push a Unix "screen redraw" command,
> 
> What's a "Unix 'screen redraw' command"?

     I should have said "filePro manual screen redraw" command. (Ctrl-L or
whatever, as opposed to "video sync".) 

> 
> [...]
> >     Would it make any difference if I got this working with the filePro
> > "USER" command, rather than the "SYSTEM" command?
> 
> No idea.  Given that there is no reason for this to be appearing on
> the screen in the first place, I can't say what would stop it from
> appearing.
> 
> When it happens again, can you grab an actual, full screenshot and post
> it here?  (You can replace any sensitive data with "X"s if you prefer,
> but leave everything else alone.)

    The only screen shots I have are graphical bitmaps, so I hesitate to
attach them.  But I'll privately email one to you, rather than send a large
attachment to everybody on the list. 

> 
> Is there any possibility that the command you are executing actually
> ends with a "&" to run the command in background?  Some shells echo
> the command line when a background task finishes.

     I'm not adding an "&" to throw it into background, but I suppose it's a
possibility that a previous programmer could have horked up the filePro
installation or the SCO OpenServer to do something crazy like that.  I'll
ask the sysadmin and some of the other programmers at this site...  

Thanks!

Mike Schwartz