Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

WinBuilder 081 beta 1 bugs


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 21 April 2010 - 01:22 AM

Seems to be incompatible with the 4/20/2010 build of win7pe_se. Get a build error that does not happen with previous versions of winbuilder.

http://www.paraglide...com/temp/log.7z

#2 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 21 April 2010 - 01:42 AM

Seems to be incompatible with the 4/20/2010 build of win7pe_se. Get a build error that does not happen with previous versions of winbuilder.

Well, I doubt that it is yet compatible with any current projects.

LiveXP recommended build results in an ISO which doesn't boot to desktop. Multiple access violations are generated, lots of errors and warnings in the log, regwrite errors.

I fear that we'll again have a WB that won't be backwards compatible requiring yet another round of script updating to maintain compatibility with the current WB version. Please Peter prove me wrong!

Regards,
Galapo.

#3 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10547 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 21 April 2010 - 01:52 AM

There will hopefully be more alpha versions to properly debug errors.

Testing against complex projects is not a reliable source for comparing as it becomes very difficult to pinpoint errors, especially if multiple variables get involved.

This was the reason why I asked for a test project where each function could be tested individually. Now it's so much difficult to debug using only "Seems to be incompatible with the 4/20/2010 build of win7pe_se. Get a build error that does not happen with previous versions of winbuilder." or even a "Well, I doubt that it is yet compatible with any current projects."

We need precise and detailed information. Having a set of scripts would really help us compare backward compatibility to a point where we could test individual functional behavior, too bad nobody else seems interested in this project and I can't do it myself right now. :ranting2:

#4 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 21 April 2010 - 06:16 AM

There will hopefully be more alpha versions to properly debug errors.

I thought we were now already in beta stage?

Testing against complex projects is not a reliable source for comparing as it becomes very difficult to pinpoint errors, especially if multiple variables get involved.

Sure it's fine to see how 080 compares with 081b1 by testing on existing projects -- because this is indeed what will be done once we have a new stable version.

Besides, did you just want us to download the beta and test it on nothing?

Regards,
Galapo.

#5 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

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

Posted 21 April 2010 - 07:24 AM

Sorry for your invonvenience.

There are some very small, but very effective bugs.

e.g.

I forgot 'strRtrim' in the line 'strLtrim, strCtrim, strPos, strLeft, strRight: Result := 4;'
That brings access violation on StrFormat,RTRIM command.

StrFormat,REPLACE,%inp%," ","",%result% replaced spaces by four quotes.
StrFormat,REPLACE,%inp%," ",,%result% worked correct.

I already fixed that and LiveXP runs into PE.

I also do not agree to Nuno's 'Alpha' and will upload as soon as I convinced him for beta 2 or he decides as 'Boss'.

Peter

#6 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 21 April 2010 - 07:37 AM

Thanks, Peter.

Regards,
Galapo.

#7 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 21 April 2010 - 11:29 AM

I posted the log so PSC can see exactly what is failing if he so chooses ( FileCreateBlank )

You need to know what the bugs are before you can create the test project. In this case FileCreateBlank sometimes works and sometimes fails.

This fails:

FileCreateBlank, "%ES%"


where %ES%="%baseDir%\Target\Win7PE_SE\windows\system32\shortcut.inf"

This works:

FileCreateBlank,"%TargetDir%\windows\system32\winpeshl.ini"

#8 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 21 April 2010 - 11:59 AM

PSC created a test project and there are several tests for FileCreateBlank. Just not a test for the one that fails!

#9 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

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

Posted 21 April 2010 - 01:05 PM

It is a "Variable with surrounding quotes in value" issue and fixed now.

The error would occur in many other commands with file names, e.g. FileCopy, FileRename, CopyOrExpand etc.

If you post a test script here, I'll include in the test project.

Peter

#10 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

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

Posted 21 April 2010 - 01:29 PM

I also do not agree to Nuno's 'Alpha' and will upload as soon as I convinced him for beta 2 or he decides as 'Boss'.


Actual fixed version uploaded as alpha to the known URL.

Peter

#11 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10547 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 21 April 2010 - 02:14 PM

I thought we were now already in beta stage?

We are using iterations between Alpha and Beta versions as needed.

This was previously explained here: http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10500

Beta
Ideally, only one beta release is released to the public at the public forum. This is the time when public feedback on the beta is welcome to test the new features and see their opinion. If only minor bugs are reported, alpha releases are used to correct them and we move onto the next phase. If more than one beta is needed it's a sign that alphas are not being used correctly. We label beta with an odd release number, for example, wb 081.
Although it's public, it shouldn't be used for official projects.


My apologies if this was not clear before. The idea is to only make available to the public a reduced number of beta versions and keep a (ilimited) number of alphas inside the defcon area to which only script developers have access.

Alphas come after and before betas are released, they are internal releases.

Beta are shared with the public but should be limited since the audience attention is also limited.

On this case, we've just announced a beta on monday and now we'd have to announce a new beta after just two days, and then after two days a new beta and so forth.

---------

Thank you for making more test scripts available.

#12 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 04:23 PM

Hey the greek alphabet has more than 2 letters, so you can really go for it and make WB the software with the most confusing release titles ever! :ranting2:

:cheers:

#13 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

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

Posted 21 April 2010 - 04:30 PM

That would overtax members.

Most of them not even know 'alpha'.
They seemed to judge the 'alpha' in the announcing topic as something dangerous or similar, and decided not to react.

Peter

#14 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 04:58 PM

Alphas are dangerous! That's the software versions with the bombs inside. :ranting2:

:cheers:

#15 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10547 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 21 April 2010 - 05:56 PM

Most of them not even know 'alpha'.
They seemed to judge the 'alpha' in the announcing topic as something dangerous or similar, and decided not to react.

Alphas are not announced to "normal" members, they are only used by script developers on the defcon forum.

Using beta just as a name because people are familiar with it while in a reality this is an alpha release is just not correct, sorry.

Bugs appear, we need more alpha versions being released far more often than beta versions in case someone is really interested in ensuring a more bug free winbuilder.

Hey the greek alphabet has more than 2 letters, so you can really go for it and make WB the software with the most confusing release titles ever!

The history of betas and alphas is quite old in software development from the IBM days.

We could also use gamma versions that are meant to assert the security of winbuilder but if there is so much trouble in using an alpha, wouldn't imagine the troubles that a gamma would bring.

#16 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 21 April 2010 - 10:43 PM

Thanks Nuno for the explanation! I understand now and it makes sense.

Regards,
Galapo.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users