Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

WB scripting unpredictability


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 09 March 2010 - 01:50 AM

Seems to me that one thing that's predicatable at the moment is that WB syntax is unpredicatible.

holmes32 bugreport has been relegated to the status of documentation: http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10625

But the issue raised there is really about the unpredicatable nature of WB script syntax. holmes32 code produces a WB error:

[Process]

Set,%var%,0

If,%var%,Equal,0,Echo,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"

But I discovered we can use the Set command as a workaround to get the function working by using quotes and without resorting to #$c nonsense.

[Process]

Set,%var%,0

Set,%echomessage%,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"

If,%var%,Equal,0,Echo,"%echomessage%"

This is not predicatable: why work with one function but not the other? WB Russian roulette script writing. Better to get back to allowing the use of quotes -- as I thought development had agreed to anyway! Always we seem to be traversing the same ground. It's hard to make developmental progress with unpredicatability.

Please can we have some predicatability reinstated with regard to quotes. With what we agreed to, holmes32 code should be working under 080.

Thanks,
Galapo.

EDIT

Also working as a workaround:

[Process]

Set,%var%,0

IniWrite,%projecttemp%\temp.ini,Section,Key,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"

IniRead,%projecttemp%\temp.ini,Section,Key,%echomessage%

//Set,%echomessage%,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"

If,%var%,Equal,0,Echo,"%echomessage%"


#2 Lancelot

Lancelot

    Frequent Member

  • .script developer
  • 5013 posts
  • Location:Turkiye/Izmir
  • Interests:*Mechanical stuff and Physics,
    *LiveXP, BartPE, SherpyaXPE,
    *Basketball and Looong Walking,
    *Buying outwear for my girlf (Reason: Girls are stupid about buying bad stuff to make themselves uglier :))
    *Girls (Lyric: Girl,...., You will be a womann, Soon)
    *Answering questions for "Meaning of life",
    *Helping people,

    Kung with LiveXP, Fu with Peter :)
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 09 March 2010 - 01:55 AM

WB Russian roulette script writing.

:ranting2:

#3 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 09 March 2010 - 06:19 AM

My worry right now is to have a good project to validate the script syntax.

Again so it's clear: topic of this thread is about the unpredicatablity of script syntax, not about a project validating the unpredicatable script syntax.

Regards,
Galapo.

#4 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 11 March 2010 - 08:48 PM

I do not understand what is wrong here.

Your sample code in Codebox:
[main]

Title=CodeBox test

Description=Running custom commands



[process]

Echo,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"
Results with WB 076:

[Script] Processing section: [process]
[Info] File [%BaseDir%\Projects\Test\CodeBox.txt] Version [1]
[Success] AddVariables - Added section [ApiVar] from file [%BaseDir%\Projects\nativeEx_barebone\Basic\Build\Common_Api.script] into the local variable list
[Info] Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?
[Done] Finished processing script: CodeBox test
[Clock] Script time: 188 miliseconds
[Done] Script has been sucessfully processed!

Results with WB 077 RC2:

[Script] Processing section: [process]
[Info] File [%BaseDir%\Projects\nativeEx_barebone\CodeBox.txt] Version [1]
[Success] AddVariables - Added section [ApiVar] from file [%BaseDir%\Projects\nativeEx_barebone\Basic\Build\Common_Api.script] into the local variable list
[Info] Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?
[Done] Finished processing script: CodeBox test
[Clock] Script time: 47 miliseconds
[Done] Script has been sucessfully processed!

With WB 080...03:

[Script] Processing section: [process]
[Info] File [%BaseDir%\Projects\nativeEx_barebone\CodeBox.txt] Version [1]
[Success] AddVariables - Added section [ApiVar] from file [%BaseDir%\Projects\nativeEx_barebone\Basic\Build\Common_Api.script] into the local variable list
[Info] Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?
[Done] Finished processing script: CodeBox test
[Clock] Script time: 62 miliseconds
[Done] Script has been sucessfully processed!

With WB 081 alpha:

[Script] Processing section: [process]
[Info] File [%BaseDir%\Projects\Test\CodeBox.txt] Version [1]
[Info] Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?
[Done] Finished processing script: CodeBox test
[Clock] Script time: 47 miliseconds
[Done] Script has been sucessfully processed!

When you compare, ALL the logs are logically the same.
I do not understand why you post WB being 'inpredictable' inspite of the result of a test using your example.

Maybe there is anywhere a bug which is not known until now. But please: In this case describe the bug as good as you can.

#5 dera

dera

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1335 posts
  •  
    Hungary

Posted 11 March 2010 - 09:28 PM

homes32 reported it as "Conditional Echo bug"

this doesn't work:
If,78,Smaller,80,Echo,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"

also Galapo's example in the first post doesn't work:
Set,%var%,0
If,%var%,Equal,0,Echo,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"

there is no echo\[Info] in the log
anyway neither work in 077RC2

#6 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 11 March 2010 - 09:50 PM

I do not understand what is wrong here.

I do: you've just manufactured your own code out of your head rather than actually testing that supplied and explained in the first post:
[Process]

Set,%var%,0

If,%var%,Equal,0,Echo,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"

Thanks,
Galapo.

#7 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:02 PM

Sorry, some 10 minutes ago i tried to post a response.

Forum's software did not process accordingly.

If it will come later, forget it.

For me this topic is closed.

And as long as there are "issues in the project", my current "alphas" are only sent to some members working cooperative ...

Peter

#8 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:19 PM

I do: you've just manufactured your own code out of your head rather than actually testing that supplied and explained in the first post:

[Process]

Set,%var%,0

If,%var%,Equal,0,Echo,"Winbuilder 080 testing coma, does it work as .script developers want?"

I've had some troubles with understanding your post. You should explain more clear!
I'm going to test that special command line.

Peter

#9 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 11 March 2010 - 11:14 PM

For me this topic is closed.

Peter, sorry I do not understand. Topic would seem to still be open if issue remains.

And as long as there are "issues in the project", my current "alphas" are only sent to some members working cooperative ...

I would have thought that closing a topic without even stating why or seeking to address the issues raised is uncooperative? I'm at a loss to understand why reporting problems with WB is being uncooperative.

Regards,
Galapo.

#10 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 11 March 2010 - 11:18 PM

I've had some troubles with understanding your post. You should explain more clear!

Peter, you'll need to explain more so that that I can understand why and in what way it was not understandable to you. You'll have to spell out what wasn't clear because my crystal ball isn't working to be able to detect what you're referring to. As a start you could have just done this:

I'm going to test that special command line.


Regards,
Galapo.

#11 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10554 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 12 March 2010 - 01:17 AM

Guys, please don't make bug debugging an unpleasant task for those involved.

#12 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 12 March 2010 - 01:24 AM

Guys, please don't make bug debugging an unpleasant task for those involved.

Agreed. Such a long topic and still the issue raised in the first post hasn't been explicitly addressed and when pressed Peter closes the topic without explanation. I have no idea what Peter's going on about and what he means by the threat

And as long as there are "issues in the project", my current "alphas" are only sent to some members working cooperative ...


Hopefully there will be some light at the end of this tunnel soon.

Regards,
Galapo.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users