Activity
From 12/16/2019 to 01/14/2020
01/14/2020
- 03:57 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> The code no longer creates a field reference when there is a @[@ downpath:
>
> [...]
>
... - 02:17 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- The code no longer creates a field reference when there is a @[@ downpath:...
- 02:12 PM Bug #4484 (WIP): Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- 09:15 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Manually merged updates into 4335a revision 11469.
- 09:13 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Igor Skornyakov wrote:
> I will first merge into 4335a and continue in it. Is it OK?
Yes.
- 08:58 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Yes, please do. And please go through https://documentation.progress.com/output/ua/Open... - 08:56 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Igor Skornyakov wrote:
> Oops. It seems that I've overlooked this, sorry. I have to add a corresponding test and upd... - 08:53 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Igor Skornyakov wrote:
> > Maybe it is better to just manually merge the changes as the... - 08:42 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Igor Skornyakov wrote:
> Maybe it is better to just manually merge the changes as they affect only two classes?
Yes... - 08:22 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> And if is an unknown value?
An error 4065 is generated.
- 08:20 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Igor, I'm OK with the changes. This can be merged with 4335a.
Constantin. 3810e wa... - 08:17 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Igor Skornyakov wrote:
> Constantin. In 4GL the @domainAccessCode@ parameter is mandatory for the @SEAL@ call.
And ... - 08:15 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Igor, I'm OK with the changes. This can be merged with 4335a.
>
> On a side note, in... - 08:04 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Igor, I'm OK with the changes. This can be merged with 4335a.
On a side note, in @validateSeal@ I left this comme...
01/13/2020
- 07:17 AM Feature #3254: add support for running 4GL on multiple threads in a single session
- Greg,
I think we should support the thread "JOIN" concept by using an additional option @AS-THREAD [SET handle] [ON-...
01/12/2020
- 02:05 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- The issue #3810-407 resolved in 3810e revision 11342.
BTW: it appears the @PRIMARY_PASSPHRASE@ attribute value is ig... - 12:00 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- @SET-DB-CLIENT@ for the principal in a @LOGIN@ state validates only @DOMAIN-NAME@ and @DOMAIN-ACCESS-CODE@ (using MAC...
- 11:03 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- With 3810e revision 11341, the @SET-DB-CLIENT@ with the imported sealed principal works fine. So the issue described ...
01/10/2020
- 05:32 PM Feature #3254 (WIP): add support for running 4GL on multiple threads in a single session
- To create a new thread, I was planning to add an optional @AS-THREAD [SET handle]@ extension to the @RUN@ statement. ...
- 04:10 AM Feature #3867: direct java class access from 4GL code
- Greg Shah wrote:
> I believe that we are at a good "first pass" level of support here. A future improvement would b... - 01:12 AM Feature #3867: direct java class access from 4GL code
- Greg Shah wrote:
> Constantin/Hynek: Do you know of any other critical bugs or missing features before we can accept...
01/09/2020
- 05:56 PM Feature #3254: add support for running 4GL on multiple threads in a single session
- Understood. To implement "temp-tables" that are shared across threads we would have to implement a multi-user databa...
- 05:17 PM Feature #3254: add support for running 4GL on multiple threads in a single session
- To clarify, you can access a persistent table across threads, but not over the same connection. A temp-table actually...
- 05:16 PM Feature #3254: add support for running 4GL on multiple threads in a single session
- Greg Shah wrote:
> Since JDBC connections cannot be shared across more than one thread, the current temp-table appro... - 05:09 PM Feature #3254: add support for running 4GL on multiple threads in a single session
- Some months ago, Eric noted to me that sharing temp-tables will be a problem since they are private to a single JDBC ...
- 04:28 PM Feature #3867: direct java class access from 4GL code
- I believe that we are at a good "first pass" level of support here. A future improvement would be to support inherit...
- 04:24 PM Feature #3867: direct java class access from 4GL code
- I just committed revision 11467 to branch 4335a (which is derived from 3809e revision 11466). This revision provides...
01/06/2020
- 02:06 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Well, I understand what was wrong in my setup. I had @large_customer_application.jar@ in my project classpath. Now th...
- 02:00 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Igor Skornyakov wrote:
> Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> > Does @com/goldencode/testcases/dmo/_meta/meta_table_ddl.sql@ exi... - 01:56 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> Does @com/goldencode/testcases/dmo/_meta/meta_table_ddl.sql@ exist in your application jar f... - 01:40 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Does @com/goldencode/testcases/dmo/_meta/meta_table_ddl.sql@ exist in your application jar file?
- 01:21 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> Igor Skornyakov wrote:
> > Please note that I still have no solution for problem #3810-413.... - 12:46 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Igor Skornyakov wrote:
> Please note that I still have no solution for problem #3810-413. Any help will be highly ap... - 05:37 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> That was not enough detail to get me going. I believe Greg thought it would be an exercise i...
01/03/2020
- 01:49 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- The extended @uast/security/export-cp.p@ test produces the compatible results in 4GL and FWD branch 3810e rev. 11341....
- 01:52 AM Feature #2135: implement COPY-LOB language statement
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> * What is the structure/size/layout of the BOM for file input/output?
There is no special...
01/02/2020
- 01:07 PM Bug #4476 (Test): Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- 12:12 PM Bug #4476 (WIP): Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- 12:11 PM Bug #4476: Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- Greg Shah wrote:
> > but doesn't myat have to be defined properly, too?
>
> In the working case, the variable is ... - 10:23 AM Bug #4476: Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- > but doesn't myat have to be defined properly, too?
In the working case, the variable is not defined as an inline... - 10:15 AM Bug #4476: Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- Greg Shah wrote:
> That is probably not related. The issue will be the tree structure under the @KW_FORM@. The @FO... - 10:07 AM Bug #4476: Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- That is probably not related. The issue will be the tree structure under the @KW_FORM@. The @FORM_ITEM@ related to ...
- 10:02 AM Bug #4476: Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- Comparing the AST generated for the broken case (@shared_frame_at_label.p@) against the correct case (@shared_frame_a...
12/31/2019
- 03:04 PM Bug #4476: Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- This is data from a correctly built testcase, which does *not* create the fields in the from on-the-fly.
@sharedfr... - 02:14 PM Bug #4476: Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- Let me recap what is generated by the pair of testcases in #note-1 :
@sharedframes/SharedFrameAtLabel.java@... - 12:00 PM Bug #4484 (Test): Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- 12:00 PM Bug #4483 (Test): Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- 12:00 PM Bug #4482 (Test): Enable/Disable with empty EXCEPT causes issues
- 11:59 AM Bug #4480 (Test): Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- 11:58 AM Bug #4455 (Test): Extent field on unsubscripted next-prompt not converted properly
- 11:57 AM Bug #4423 (Test): Incorrect buffer scoping when same buffer name used as a parameter to internal ...
- 10:42 AM Bug #4427 (Test): Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- 10:39 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Committed @rules/annotations/input_builtin_prep.rules@ to *4207a-11367*.
- 10:19 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger, I think I found the root cause. Try replacing the @walk-rules@ with @ascent-rule...
12/28/2019
- 03:05 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- I still have two issues with @CLIENT-PRINCIPAL@ EXPORT/IMPORT support.
1. The quirk which is described in #4108 also... - 03:54 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Greg Shah wrote:
> 3809e is frozen at this time. Please create a new 3810e branch.
Thank you, Greg.
Created tas... - 08:58 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- 3809e is frozen at this time. Please create a new 3810e branch.
12/27/2019
- 02:17 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- It seems that multiple changes are required. Which branch should I use to commit? At this moment I'm working with 380...
- 02:33 AM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- Contrary to what is was said in #3810-174, the value of the @PRIMARY-PASSPHRASE@ attribute is *not* always hidden (re...
12/26/2019
- 05:27 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- With with 3809e revision 11456 @uast/security/export-cp.p@ reveals multiple incompatibilities in @CLIENT-PRINCIPAL@ ...
12/25/2019
- 02:47 PM Feature #3810: SECURITY-POLICY and other security features
- I'm trying to converted run @uast/security/export-cp.p@ with 3809e revision 11456 and two attached databases. The ser...
12/24/2019
- 02:22 PM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Roger, I think I found the root cause. Try replacing the @walk-rules@ with @ascent-rules@ in @input_builtin_prep.rul...
- 12:19 PM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- I see that getScreenValue() is the method used in your testcase. The AST and Java look so much cleaner than in my tes...
- 11:44 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger Borrello wrote:
> > Thanks for looking. I had a much more complicated testcase or... - 11:17 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Thanks for looking. I had a much more complicated testcase originally, which has been greatl... - 11:16 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- There's something else going on. This case parses/converts properly:...
- 11:11 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Thanks for looking. I had a much more complicated testcase originally, which has been greatly reduced:...
- 10:59 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger Borrello wrote:
> > I went to a basic @input mybuff[x]@ where x was just an integ... - 10:55 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> I went to a basic @input mybuff[x]@ where x was just an integer. It generated:
I don't thin... - 10:22 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> What is @dynamicindex@ annotation used for? I'm trying to determine why the LBRACKET subtree...
12/23/2019
- 11:53 AM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- What is @dynamicindex@ annotation used for? I'm trying to determine why the LBRACKET subtree is duplicated in @input_...
12/20/2019
- 04:54 PM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> I looked at a much simpler case of using @input mynum@ then @input mybuff[mynum]@ instead of... - 04:02 PM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- I looked at a much simpler case of using @input mynum@ then @input mybuff[mynum]@ instead of the more complicated, ne...
- 02:52 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Greg Shah wrote:
> > > a bug in ArrayAssigner - when is defined, a dynamic extent var g... - 01:06 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Does this mean the testcase is invalid? Or is there a bug? I was using 4207a, not trunk.
I ... - 01:04 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> The above is from trunk: @if false then accum "third" (count).@ is marked as unreachable... - 12:57 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Greg Shah wrote:
> > a bug in ArrayAssigner - when is defined, a dynamic extent var gets registered with the previou... - 12:07 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- The above is from trunk: @if false then accum "third" (count).@ is marked as unreachable, which is not correct. Any a...
- 11:56 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger Borrello wrote:
> > Roger Borrello wrote:
> > > I think there is a regression. S... - 10:24 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Roger Borrello wrote:
> > I think there is a regression. See testcase below. In fact, I jus... - 09:58 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> I think there is a regression. See testcase below. In fact, I just ran *4207a* against @uast... - 09:56 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- I think there is a regression. See testcase below. In fact, I just ran *4207a* against @uast/accum_scope*.p" and ther...
- 09:36 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- > use a special wrapper (so that we can make even the dynamic extent vars 'mutable', maybe limited to shared cases)
... - 09:33 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- > a bug in ArrayAssigner - when is defined, a dynamic extent var gets registered with the previous scope, and not the...
- 01:09 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Argh, there was another typo. fixed in 11366
Great... this update worked! We need to ... - 12:45 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Argh, there was another typo. fixed in 11366
- 12:12 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Just reporting that there is another scenario which creates a hidden FieldRef. I checked in @uast/accum/accum_count_h...
- 10:02 AM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> > Roger, see 4207a rev 11362, it should fix the issue.
>
> I... - 10:00 AM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger, see 4207a rev 11362, it should fix the issue.
I'll take a look - 09:31 AM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger, see 4207a rev 11362, it should fix the issue.
- 07:12 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Found a subsequent error, when multiple accumulators are on the same statement.
Added a new testcase @uast/accum_s... - 12:34 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- Greg Shah wrote:
> > The updated ended up being in Variable.java, so updated to progress.g are unnecessary. However,... - 11:42 AM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- > The updated ended up being in Variable.java, so updated to progress.g are unnecessary. However, the changes could b...
12/19/2019
- 06:36 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Ah, and I just realized something - for variables scoped to the external program, we sho... - 03:48 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- The conversion fixes are in 4207a rev 11360. It also moves the @ExtentExpr@ to anon classes, to get rid of the param...
- 02:44 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- I have a conversion fix for the INPUT and normal variable, but I'm working also on getting rid of the promotion of th...
- 12:53 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- And another side-note, in case of OE class properties, we are missing:
* getter which returns the extent var (withou... - 12:46 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Greg, as a side note: for shared variables, if there is a dynamic extent case, then this solution will not work (as t...
- 12:06 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Greg Shah wrote:
> OK. Can you please add that change to 4207a?
OK, will do. - 12:04 PM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- OK. Can you please add that change to 4207a?
- 11:47 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Greg, the @ref[0]@ approach was added, but only for OUTPUT parameters (I really don't recall why I did it only for th...
- 11:38 AM Bug #4160: Arrays assigment issue
- Indeterminate arrays are profoundly broken in the current FWD trunk. This task and #4123 show two very simple cases ...
- 01:47 PM Bug #4480 (WIP): Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- 01:47 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- *Code checked into 4207a-11359.*
- 01:42 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- h2. Testcases Converted and Compiled.
@form_with_extent.p@... - 01:18 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Greg Shah wrote:
> > > But: the same might apply to OO properties, table fields and procedu...
12/18/2019
- 04:52 PM Bug #4484 (WIP): Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- 04:51 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Update to @rules/annotations/accumulate.rules@ checked into @4207a-11358@.
- 04:34 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger, please check this patch:
> [...]
>
> The problem was that the check if the ex... - 04:24 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger, please check this patch:...
- 04:08 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Check the other @KW_ACCUM/EXPRESSION@ nodes. Once COUNT is encountered, any @ STATEMENT... - 03:34 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Check the other @KW_ACCUM/EXPRESSION@ nodes. Once COUNT is encountered, any @ STATEMENT/KW_ACCUM/EXPRESSION@ will ha...
- 03:25 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> > Roger, there's another different in the AST: look for the @hi... - 01:53 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger, there's another different in the AST: look for the @hidden@ attribute at the AST ... - 01:47 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger, there's another different in the AST: look for the @hidden@ attribute at the AST node; this depends on the @su...
- 01:37 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger Borrello wrote:
> > I tried that immediately above. It is an issue limited to fie... - 01:34 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> I tried that immediately above. It is an issue limited to fields. Are we trying to be too _f... - 01:29 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> OK, try this, too:
> [...]
>
> Is normal to declare @i@, as is an explicit var. I'm ... - 01:25 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- OK, try this, too:...
- 01:24 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> > This works fine in 4GL:
> > [...]
>
> I added count...
>... - 01:20 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> This works fine in 4GL:
> [...]
I added count...... - 01:09 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- This works fine in 4GL:...
- 01:06 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger, is this limited only for fields? Does FWD convert OK if you replace the field wit... - 01:02 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger, is this limited only for fields? Does FWD convert OK if you replace the field with some variable?
- 01:01 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Doing some research related to what makes these aggregate functions _order-dependent_.
>
... - 11:04 AM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Doing some research related to what makes these aggregate functions _order-dependent_.
+Run 1+...
12/17/2019
- 05:31 PM Bug #4427: Unable to convert keyword input when used to index into an extent
- This still is not fixed, as the java code does not compile. Below is the compilation error of the testcase:...
- 04:58 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Roger Borrello wrote:
> > This looks like the culprit...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Would ... - 04:26 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> This looks like the culprit...
>
> [...]
>
> Would it be simple as removing the check ... - 04:09 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- This looks like the culprit......
- 03:59 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> OK, I think this confirms the problem is with COUNT. Look at @process_aggregate@ functi... - 03:46 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- OK, I think this confirms the problem is with COUNT. Look at @process_aggregate@ function in @annotations/accumulate...
- 03:39 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> This might be related to @COUNT@ which doesn't necessarily need the field reference; so,... - 03:32 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- This might be related to @COUNT@ which doesn't necessarily need the field reference; so, please expand your test to r...
- 03:02 PM Bug #4484: Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- h1. Testcase
*20191231 Update: Fixed in 4207a-11366*
Checked in: @uast/accum_overlap_count-total.p@... - 02:55 PM Bug #4484 (Closed): Accumulator confusion using same field for count and total
- 03:18 PM Bug #4483 (WIP): Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- 03:16 PM Bug #4483: Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- Greg Shah wrote:
> The @CONTENT_ARRAY@ is only found in the @MESSAGE@, @ENABLE@, @DISABLE@, @COLOR@ and @UNDERLINE@ ... - 02:59 PM Bug #4483: Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- The @CONTENT_ARRAY@ is only found in the @MESSAGE@, @ENABLE@, @DISABLE@, @COLOR@ and @UNDERLINE@ statements, but only...
- 02:06 PM Bug #4483: Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger, see the @noUnwrap@ logic - this should decide if @_isEqual@ or @isEqual@ is emitt... - 12:41 PM Bug #4483: Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- Roger, see the @noUnwrap@ logic - this should decide if @_isEqual@ or @isEqual@ is emitted, and looks like it depends...
- 11:59 AM Bug #4483: Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> h1. Testcase
>
> Below is the testcase @uast/underline_logic_uses_when.p@:
>
> [...]
... - 11:55 AM Bug #4483: Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- h1. Testcase
*20191231 Update: Fixed in 4207a-11357*
Below is the testcase @uast/underline_logic_uses_when.p@:
... - 11:39 AM Bug #4483 (Closed): Unable to use logical variable check in underline statement
- 01:34 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- Greg Shah wrote:
> > But: the same might apply to OO properties, table fields and procedure parameters. So please do... - 10:30 AM Bug #4482: Enable/Disable with empty EXCEPT causes issues
- *Code updates in 4207a-11356.*
@rules/annotations/cleanup.rules@ - 09:27 AM Bug #4482 (WIP): Enable/Disable with empty EXCEPT causes issues
- 09:26 AM Bug #4482: Enable/Disable with empty EXCEPT causes issues
- *20191231 Update: Fixed in 4207a-11356*
There is already a testcase that should have found this: @uast/enable_and_... - 09:23 AM Bug #4482 (Closed): Enable/Disable with empty EXCEPT causes issues
12/16/2019
- 03:50 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- > But: the same might apply to OO properties, table fields and procedure parameters. So please do some tests, and if ...
- 02:26 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Roger, I agree, I think we need to 'fix' the extent when there is an initializer and no ... - 02:05 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- Roger, I agree, I think we need to 'fix' the extent when there is an initializer and no extent value. For variables,...
- 01:53 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> h1. Testcase @uast/form_tests/form_with_extent.p@
>
> [...]
>
> The message is *Extent... - 12:45 PM Bug #4480: Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- h1. Testcase @uast/form_tests/form_with_extent.p@
*20191231 Update: Checked in 4207a-11365*... - 12:32 PM Bug #4480 (Closed): Extent does not become fixed when there is an initial list of values
- 09:26 AM Bug #4476: Shared frame does not get @ widget method generated
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> h1. Testcase
>
> Added 2 testcases (since it is a shared frame)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]...
Also available in: Atom