Project

General

Profile

Bug #7198

conversion of empty UPDATE/SET/PROMPT-FOR statements

Added by Constantin Asofiei about 1 year ago. Updated 12 months ago.

Status:
Test
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Constantin Asofiei
Target version:
-
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

0%

billable:
No
vendor_id:
GCD
case_num:
version:

History

#2 Updated by Constantin Asofiei about 1 year ago

Empty UPDATE., SET. or PROMPT-FOR. statements seem to be a no-op in OE. FWD fails at conversion phase.

Test UPDATE/SET/PROMPT-FOR WITH FRAME cases, without any referenced widgets. With and without an existing frame with defined widgets.

#3 Updated by Constantin Asofiei about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from New to WIP
  • Assignee set to Constantin Asofiei

Created task branch 7198a from trunk rev 14506.

7198a/14507 fixes this for UPDATE/SET/PROMPT-FOR. We need to test ENABLE and other statements, in the same way. The test used was:

def var ch as char.
update.
update with frame f1.
update ch.
update ch with frame f1.

set.
set with frame f1.
set ch.
set ch with frame f1.

prompt-for.
prompt-for with frame f1.
prompt-for ch.
prompt-for ch with frame f1.

In OE, a test like this:

def var ch as char.
update with frame f1 title "x".
message "x".
pause.
update ch with frame f1.

goes directly to the PAUSE. statement - so it doesn't look like UPDATE gets morphed into a VIEW.

#4 Updated by Greg Shah about 1 year ago

I thought we already handled this at one point.

#5 Updated by Constantin Asofiei about 1 year ago

Greg Shah wrote:

I thought we already handled this at one point.

I thought so, too, but the only thing I found was empty DISPLAY morphing into VIEW, for #3389.

#6 Updated by Greg Shah about 1 year ago

Do you want to put this into 7199a instead?

Should we set this to Review?

#7 Updated by Constantin Asofiei about 1 year ago

Greg Shah wrote:

Do you want to put this into 7199a instead?

No.

Should we set this to Review?

There is more work for ENABLE and any other UI statements. Plus I don't know what happens if there are DO WITH FRAME F: UPDATE. END., which is not using the implicit unnamed frame.

#8 Updated by Greg Shah 12 months ago

There is more work for ENABLE and any other UI statements. Plus I don't know what happens if there are DO WITH FRAME F: UPDATE. END., which is not using the implicit unnamed frame.

Should we defer the rest of these checks to another task and move ahead with 7198a?

#9 Updated by Constantin Asofiei 12 months ago

Greg Shah wrote:

There is more work for ENABLE and any other UI statements. Plus I don't know what happens if there are DO WITH FRAME F: UPDATE. END., which is not using the implicit unnamed frame.

Should we defer the rest of these checks to another task and move ahead with 7198a?

Yes, I think so. But I need to put this (and 7199c) into conversion testing.

#10 Updated by Constantin Asofiei 12 months ago

7198a rev 14507 was rebased from trunk rev 14604 - new rev 14605.

rev 14606 has an adjustment for new downPath(tokenlist) version.

#11 Updated by Greg Shah 12 months ago

You can merge 7198a to trunk after 7395d.

#12 Updated by Constantin Asofiei 12 months ago

Branch 7198a was merged to trunk rev 14609 and archived.

#13 Updated by Greg Shah 12 months ago

  • Status changed from WIP to Test

Also available in: Atom PDF