A really insidious browse bug...

[John Esak]

Well, the syntax parser can't really check *inside* the variables... But you
are right, maybe it can check *past* them. 

And, I assume they took the 5.6 manual pages from the manual I wrote years
ago... It was the first on-line version which combined all the other colored
manuals and produced a web version and a Windows version.  So, I would say
that code should have been in the manual for over a decade.  And actually,
as for the concatenating of variables article I did for the Guru about it...
I am pretty sure I got the idea from ken Brody in the first place.  
 
John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: GCC Consulting [mailto:gccconsulting at comcast.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:03 AM
> To: john.esak at 21appr.com; support at fptech.com
> Cc: 'Lee Machan'; 'glenn.freeman'; 'filePro'; 'Timothy R Barr'
> Subject: RE: A really insidious browse bug...
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 
> filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.celestial.com
> >
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.c
elestial.com]
> On
> > Behalf Of John Esak
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 8:25 PM
> > To: support at fptech.com
> > Cc: 'Lee Machan'; 'glenn.freeman'; 'filePro'; 'Timothy R Barr'
> > Subject: Bug: A really insidious browse bug...
> > 
> > Well, remember I pointed out an obscure bug you could run 
> into if you use
> > the old Guru Magazine article I did a hundred years ago 
> about building
> > browses in variables and then concatenating the b= var & var & var
> > method....
> > 
> > Well, I found something today that drove me completely 
> nuts... For about
> an
> > hour.
> > 
> > If on the lookup line, which looks something like this...
> > 
> > Lookup alias=file k=(key) i=A -nl b=(b_cfg & b_hdr & b_data)
> > 
> > You mistakenly do this:
> > 
> > Lookup alias=file k=(key) i=A -nl b=(b_cfg & b_hdr & b_data)
> > *56"
> > 
> > And I did this because I usually copy the original browse 
> several times
> and
> > break it into the 3 vars.  It's just an easy way to change 
> a browse that
> is
> > already written with the browse wizard.  Anyway, the *56"  
> was hung out
> way,
> > way past the 80th character on the screen... Meaning OUT OF 
> SITE!!!!  And
> > the syntax checker did NOT catch it!!!!!  (Really, it 
> probably shouldn't
> be
> > looking past a complete lookup... I don't blame the syntax 
> checker.... But
> > still, it is something to look for if ever you run into 
> unfigure-outable
> > problems.)
> > 
> > Man, I typed in the lines of the browse over and over 
> again... Thinking I
> > had some wired invisible character or who knows.  The symptom was a
> skinny,
> > minny 1 character wide window... With the highlight bar visible but
> nothing
> > else of course... Ho much can you show in 1 character? :-)
> > 
> > So, for you Ray, at FpTech... I'm not sure this could be 
> classified as a
> > bug... Because FpTech doesn't suggest or maybe even support 
> breaking the
> > browse into variables... But you *have* to do it for those 
> which need to
> > take up the whole screen with lots of fields... Otherwise the browse
> wizard
> > truncates the 2nd line and doubles the quote... Something I 
> have sent to
> > tech support several times over 10 years ago and maybe even 
> more recently.
> > Obviously, not much you can do, but maybe Ken will want to 
> run his parser
> > *past* a completed browse for any "hangouts* which might be 
> past the human
> > visible edge of the screen.  Actually, I don't know what 
> made me even look
> > over there, I did by accident and ended the hour of torture. :-)
> > 
> > For the rest of you... Beware of this time waster!
> > 
> > Everyone have a nice beginning of December! I missed the back from
> > Thanksgiving thread... Let's all hope the new year brings back the
> economy.
> > It's funny, gas is now down to $1.80 a gallon and it's 
> almost unnoticed or
> > unmentioned by anyone.... But boy it helps, huh?  Now, if I 
> could only
> sell
> > an unwanted house!  :-)
> > 
> > John Esak
> 
> 
> If memory serves me correctly, when the browse lookup was 
> first released,
> without the wizard, this was one of the techniques suggested.
> 
> In any event, )*56 should show an error as this is incorrect 
> syntax for both
> a regular lookup or a browse lookup.
> 
> I just checked the 5.6.0 manual.  And low and behold, the 
> example for a
> browse lookup is just as John used, the browse command broken 
> down into
> variables.  So, John, this problem is one which the syntax 
> parser should
> catch.
> 
> For those of you who don't use this method for a browse, is 
> offers you some
> flexibility in how information is displayed. You can change 
> the order in
> which fields are displayed or which fields are displayed.  
> You can even
> change the index used based on which display variables are used.
> 
> 
> Richard Kreiss
> GCC Consulting
> rkreiss at gccconsulting.net
>   
> 
> 
> 
>