What's the deal with this, it's driving me crazy?
I run this piece of code;
if(GetControlCount() > 0)
{
RemoveAllControls();
}
And as soon as I step over the RemoveAllControls(); line I get the following exceptions;
12557.709,EXCEPTION,P44,T00,A174,Osp::Ui::Container::GetControlAt (392) > [E_OBJ_NOT_FOUND] Unable to find the specified control.
12557.709,EXCEPTION,P44,T00,A174,Osp::Ui::Container::RemoveControl (247) > [E_OBJ_NOT_FOUND] Propagated.
If the problem is that there are no controls, surely my check should be solving this? So what's the deal?
I have also tried naming the controls individually, null checking them an then removing them if they are not null, but again, I get these exceptions.
12557.709,EXCEPTION,P44,T00,A174,Osp::Ui::Container::GetControlAt (392) > [E_OBJ_NOT_FOUND] Unable to find the specified control.
12557.709,EXCEPTION,P44,T00,A174,Osp::Ui::Container::RemoveControl (247) > [E_OBJ_NOT_FOUND] Propagated.
Is it possible that these are being flagged from a different place in your code? You should try and catch the result to make doubly sure it is coming from where you think. There are several variations of Control::Remove and the AppLog doesn't exactly match the ones you call so perhaps you call other, similarly named ones elsewhere and you are seeing their internal implementation(s) throwing exceptions.
Related
I have just started a new version of my Crysis Wars Server Side Modification called InfinityX. For better management, I have put the functions inside tables as it looks neater and I can group functions together (like Core.PlayerHandle:GetIp(player)), but I have ran into a problem.
The problem is that the specified method to get the players' name, player:GetName() is being seen as an invalid method, when the method actually is completely valid.
I would like to know if using the below structure is causing a problem and if so, how to fix it. This is the first time I've used this structure for functions, but it is already proving easier than the old method I was using.
The Code:
Event =
{
PlayerConnect = function(player)
Msg.All:CenteredConsole("$4Event$8 (Connect)$9: $3"..player:GetName().." on channel "..player.actor:GetChannel());
System.LogAlways(Default.Tag.."Incoming Connect on Channel "..player.actor:GetChannel());
Event:Log("Connect", player);
end;
};
The below code works when I bypass the function and put the code directly where it's needed:
Msg.All:CenteredConsole("$4Event$8 (Connect)$9: $3"..player:GetName().." on channel "..player.actor:GetChannel());
System.LogAlways(Default.Tag.."Incoming Connect on Channel "..player.actor:GetChannel());
The Error:
[Warning] [Lua Error] infinityx/main/core.events.lua:23: attempt to call method 'GetName' (a nil value)
PlayerConnect, (infinityx/main/core.events.lua: 23)
ConnectScript, (infinityx/main/core.main.lua: 52)
OnClientEnteredGame, (scripts/gamerules/instantaction.lua: 511)
(null) (scripts/gamerules/teaminstantaction.lua: 520)
Any clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks :)
Well, as PlayerConnect is inside the table Event, and you are calling with a ":", add self as first arg in the function, like:
PlayerConnect = function(self, player)
Clearly, player in the first block of code is not the same as player in the second block of code. The problem must be that the caller of Event.PlayerConnect is not passing the same value.
To test that your Event.PlayerConnect function works, try this in the same place as your second block of code:
Event.PlayerConnect(player)
That should work as you expect.
So, the problem comes down to how Event.PlayerConnect is called without the second block of code. I'm not familiar with that game engine so I don't know how it is done. Perhaps reviewing the documentation and/or debugging that area would help. If you print(player) or call the equivalent log function in both cases, you should see they are different. If you can't run in a debugger, you can still get a stack trace with print(debug.traceback("Accessing player, who's value is: "..player)). If there is indeed some kind of table-based player object in both cases, you can try comparing their fields to see how they are different. You might need to write a simple dumping function to help with that.
I am trying to do a simple addition of data to a database table (PostgreSQL). At first, I couldn't even get a simple
$my_item = $_item_class->new(...);
to work. I discovered I had spelled a field differently in my code from what I had in my "model" code.
But, now, this is working, but when I try:
$my_item->save;
it seems an exception is thrown. All this is occurring in an eval {...} structure and I would like to catch the exception and see what is going wrong, but I don't know how to do that.
Why would something like the "save" be failing here? I have checked everything, and all seems right (of course!).
And, how do I catch the exception that seems to be being thrown?
Thank you!
I figured all this out myself. It was simple. I had duplicated a field in my class somehow when I had done an edit to it. That was all. The class just had two identically named fields specified in the hash table in the class, both with identical characteristics. When I removed one of these, the code worked.
With regard to my second question about how to catch the exception, I had to learn how to have an
if ($#) {
.
.
.
}
right after my "eval {...}" structure. Because I am new to Perl, I didn't understand that. But, it was actually pretty easy to figure out. My problem was that I was working from some code as a model for me that didn't do that but named specific exceptions that were thrown in its "eval {...}" code. So, I thought that I had to have the names of exceptions that could be thrown by Rose::DB::Object calls, but I couldn't find any such exceptions in the documentation. When I learned about "if ($#) {...}", I was able to print out the reported exception in $# and from that I was able to see the problem with the duplicate field I mentioned above.
That was all there was to it. Everything is working just fine now.
For example, in the case of "The array index out of bound" exception, why don't we check the array length in advance:
if(array.length < countNum)
{
//logic
}
else
{
//replace using exception
}
My question is, why choose to use an exception? and when to use an exception, instead of if-else
Thanks.
It depends on acceptable practices for a given language.
In Java, the convention is to always check conditions whenever possible and not to use exceptions for flow control. But, for example, in Python not only using exception in this manner is acceptable, but it is also a preferred practice.
They are used to inform the code that calls your code an exceptional condition occurred. Exceptions are more expensive than well formed if/else logic so you use them in exceptional circumstances such as reaching a condition in your code you cannot handle locally, or to support giving the caller of your code the choice of how to handle the error condition.
Usually if you find yourself throwing and catching exceptions in your own function or method, you can probably find a more efficient way of doing it.
There are many answers to that question. As a single example, from Java, when you are using multiple threads, sometimes you need to interrupt a thread, and the thread will see this when an InterruptedException is thrown.
Other times, you will be using an API that throws certain exceptions. You won't be able to avoid it. If the API throws, for example, an IOException, then you can catch it, or let it bubble up.
Here's an example where it would actually be better to use an exception instead of a conditional.
Say you had a list of 10,000 strings. Now, you only want those items which are integers. Now, you know that a very small number of them won't be integers (in string form). So should you check to see if every string is an integer before trying to convert them? Or should you just try to convert them and throw and catch an exception if you get one that isn't an integer? The second way is more efficient, but if they were mostly non-integers then it would be more efficient to use an if-statement.
Most of the time, however, you should not use exceptions if you can replace them with a conditional.
As someone has already said, 'Exceptions' in programming languages are for exceptional cases and not to set logical flow of your program. For example, in the case of given code snippet of your question, you have to see what the enclosing method's or function's intention is. Is checking array.length < countNum part of the business logic or not. If yes, then putting a pair of if/else there is the way to go. If that condition is not part of the business logic and the enclosing method's intention is something else, then write code for that something else and throw exception instead of going the if/else way. For example you develop an application for a school and in your application you have a method GetClassTopperGrades which is responsible for the business logic part which requires to return the highest marks of the student in a certain class. the method/function definition would be something like this:
int GetClassTopperGrades(string classID)
In this case the method's intention is to return the grades, for a valid class, which will always be a positive integer, according to the business logic of the application. Now if someone calls your method and passes a garbage string or null, what should it do? If should throw an exception e.g. ArgumentException or 'ArgumentNullException' because this was an exceptional case in this particular context. The method assumed that always a valid class ID will be passed and NULL or empty string is NOT a valid class ID (a deviation from the business logic).
Apart from that, in some conditions there is no prior knowledge about the outcome of a given code and no defined way to prevent an exceptional situation. For example, querying some remote database, if the network goes down, you don't have any other option there apart from throwing an exception. Would you check network connectivity before issuing every SQL query to the remote database?
There is strong and indisputable reason why to use exceptions - no matter of language. I strongly believe that decision about if to use exceptions or not have nothing to do with particular language used.
Using exceptions is universal method to notify other part of code that something wrong happened in kind of loosely coupled way. Let imagine that if you would like to handle some exceptional condition by using if.. nad else.. you need to insert into different part of your code some arbitrary variables and other stuff which probably would easily led to have spaghetti code soon after.
Let next imagine that you are using any external library/package and it's author decided to put in his/her code other arbitrary way to handle wrong states - it would force you to adjust to its way of dealing with it - for example you would need to check if particular methods returns true or false or whatever. Using exceptions makes handling errors much more easy - you just assume that if something goes wrong - the other code will throw exception, so you just wrap the code in try block and handle possible exception on your own way.
I have a problem involving NDSolve in Mathematica, which I run multiple times with different values of the parameters. For some of these values, the solution results in singularities and NDSolve warns with NDSolve::ndsz or other related warnings.
I would simply like to catch these warnings, suppress their display, and just keep track of the fact that a problem occurred for these particular values of the parameters. I thought of the following options (neither of which really do the trick):
I know I can determine whether a command has resulted in a warning or error by using Check. However, that will still display the warning. If I turn it off with Off the Check fails to report the warning too.
It is possible to stop NDSolve using the EventLocator method, so I could check for very large values of the function or its derivatives and stop evaluation in that case. However, in practice, this still produces warnings from time to time, presumably because the step size can sometimes be so large that the NDSolve warning triggers before my Event has taken place.
Any other suggestions?
If you wrap the Check with Quiet then I believe that everything should work as you want. For example, you can suppress the specific message Power::indet
In[1]:= Quiet[Check[0^0,err,Power::indet],Power::indet]
Out[1]= err
but other messages are still displayed
In[2]:= Quiet[Check[Sin[x,y],err,Power::indet],Power::indet]
During evaluation of In[2]:= Sin::argx: Sin called with 2 arguments; 1 argument is expected. >>
Out[2]= Sin[x,y]
Using Quiet and Check together works:
Quiet[Check[Table[1/Sin[x], {x, 0, \[Pi], \[Pi]}], $Failed]]
Perhaps you wish to redirect messages? This is copied almost verbatim from that page.
stream = OpenWrite["msgtemp.txt"];
$Messages = {stream};
1/0
FilePrint["msgtemp.txt"]
I'm having a hard time choosing whether I should "enforce" a condition or "assert" a condition in D. (This is language-neutral, though.)
Theoretically, I know that you use assertions to find bugs, and you enforce other conditions in order to check for atypical conditions. E.g. you might say assert(count >= 0) for an argument to your method, because that indicates that there's a bug with the caller, and that you would say enforce(isNetworkConnected), because that's not a bug, it's just something that you're assuming that could very well not be true in a legitimate situation beyond your control.
Furthermore, assertions can be removed from code as an optimization, with no side effects, but enforcements cannot be removed because they must always execute their condition code. Hence if I'm implementing a lazy-filled container that fills itself on the first access to any of its methods, I say enforce(!empty()) instead of assert(!empty()), because the check for empty() must always occur, since it lazily executes code inside.
So I think I know that they're supposed to mean. But theory is easier than practice, and I'm having a hard time actually applying the concepts.
Consider the following:
I'm making a range (similar to an iterator) that iterates over two other ranges, and adds the results. (For functional programmers: I'm aware that I can use map!("a + b") instead, but I'm ignoring that for now, since it doesn't illustrate the question.) So I have code that looks like this in pseudocode:
void add(Range range1, Range range2)
{
Range result;
while (!range1.empty)
{
assert(!range2.empty); //Should this be an assertion or enforcement?
result += range1.front + range2.front;
range1.popFront();
range2.popFront();
}
}
Should that be an assertion or an enforcement? (Is it the caller's fault that the ranges don't empty at the same time? It might not have control of where the range came from -- it could've come from a user -- but then again, it still looks like a bug, doesn't it?)
Or here's another pseudocode example:
uint getFileSize(string path)
{
HANDLE hFile = CreateFile(path, ...);
assert(hFile != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE); //Assertion or enforcement?
return GetFileSize(hFile); //and close the handle, obviously
}
...
Should this be an assertion or an enforcement? The path might come from a user -- so it might not be a bug -- but it's still a precondition of this method that the path should be valid. Do I assert or enforce?
Thanks!
I'm not sure it is entirely language-neutral. No language that I use has enforce(), and if I encountered one that did then I would want to use assert and enforce in the ways they were intended, which might be idiomatic to that language.
For instance assert in C or C++ stops the program when it fails, it doesn't throw an exception, so its usage may not be the same as what you're talking about. You don't use assert in C++ unless you think that either the caller has already made an error so grave that they can't be relied on to clean up (e.g. passing in a negative count), or else some other code elsewhere has made an error so grave that the program should be considered to be in an undefined state (e.g. your data structure appears corrupt). C++ does distinguish between runtime errors and logic errors, though, which may roughly correspond but I think are mostly about avoidable vs. unavoidable errors.
In the case of add you'd use a logic error if the author's intent is that a program which provides mismatched lists has bugs and needs fixing, or a runtime exception if it's just one of those things that might happen. For instance if your function were to handle arbitrary generators, that don't necessarily have a means of reporting their length short of destructively evaluating the whole sequence, you'd be more likely consider it an unavoidable error condition.
Calling it a logic error implies that it's the caller's responsibility to check the length before calling add, if they can't ensure it by the exercise of pure reason. So they would not be passing in a list from a user without explicitly checking the length first, and in all honesty should count themselves lucky they even got an exception rather than undefined behavior.
Calling it a runtime error expresses that it's "reasonable" (if abnormal) to pass in lists of different lengths, with the exception indicating that it happened on this occasion. Hence I think an enforcement rather than an assertion.
In the case of filesize: for the existence of a file, you should if possible treat that as a potentially recoverable failure (enforcement), not a bug (assertion). The reason is simply that there is no way for the caller to be certain that a file exists - there's always someone with more privileges who can come along and remove it, or unmount the entire fielsystem, in between a check for existence and a call to filesize. It's therefore not necessarily a logical flaw in the calling code when it doesn't exist (although the end-user might have shot themselves in the foot). Because of that fact it's likely there will be callers who can treat it as just one of those things that happens, an unavoidable error condition. Creating a file handle could also fail for out-of-memory, which is another unavoidable error on most systems, although not necessarily a recoverable one if for example over-committing is enabled.
Another example to consider is operator[] vs. at() for C++'s vector. at() throws out_of_range, a logic error, not because it's inconceivable that a caller might want to recover, or because you have to be some kind of numbskull to make the mistake of accessing an array out of range using at(), but because the error is entirely avoidable if the caller wants it to be - you can always check the size() before access if you have no other way of knowing whether your index is good or not. And so operator[] doesn't guarantee any checks at all, and in the name of efficiency an out of range access has undefined behavior.
assert should be considered a "run-time checked comment" indicating an assumption that the programmer makes at that moment. The assert is part of the function implementation. A failed assert should always be considered a bug at the point where the wrong assumption is made, so at the code location of the assert. To fix the bug, use a proper means to avoid the situation.
The proper means to avoid bad function inputs are contracts, so the example function should have a input contract that checks that range2 is at least as long as range1. The assertion inside the implementation could then still remain in place. Especially in longer more complex implementations, such an assert may inprove understandability.
An enforce is a lazy approach to throwing runtime exceptions. It is nice for quick-and-dirty code because it is better to have a check in there rather then silently ignoring the possibility of a bad condition. For production code, it should be replaced by a proper mechanism that throws a more meaningful exception.
I believe you have partly answered your question yourself. Assertions are bound to break the flow. If your assertion is wrong, you will not agree to continue with anything. If you enforce something you are making a decision to allow something to happen based on the situation. If you find that the conditions are not met, you can enforce that the entry to a particular section is denied.