|
Post by Jo on Mar 20, 2021 18:46:36 GMT -5
George, the new file V2.4.21079 file SPFLite2.4.21079Beta.zip does still contain 21076 CFGMaint & help files. No changes there? Jo
oh, I forgot to report: in the Macros.chm "Function Overview" Functions that manage the Edit file "Get_FileBase$" points to "Get_FilePath$"-Detail when clicked.
|
|
|
Post by mueh on Mar 21, 2021 2:13:36 GMT -5
George: Thanks for 2.4.21079 Two Doc change requests and 1 Minor Problem existing since V2 1. Recall cmd should doc new Filepath and Configs Parameter 2. Switching to Alternate FM layout in Root directory f.e D:\ it is not saved in cfg member LDEFAULT Maybe doc should show that only Non Root folder is saved . 3. Since V2 Hide cmd issues msg "HIDE set to ON, saved in the Profile" Hide is not saved since it's no Profile Value and is missleading since V2 which added call me.AddLockPrefix(IIF$(ISTRUE nv, "HIDE set to ON", "HIDE set to OFF")) Thanks
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 21, 2021 10:34:38 GMT -5
OK The latest Beta has the original doc files, nothing important changed so I didn't feel like spending the 10-15 minutes to reprocess the files.
I'll do the corrections you all have pointed out.
Yes, I probably inserted the AddLockPrefix everywhere. I guess I'll have to go through each and every one now to see which ones (like HIDE) shouldn't have it. Bah!
Jo: I've absolutely no idea why your CHM files are popping up security messages. Anyone else?
MUEH: There were 4-5 instances of AddLockPrefix used incorrectly, thanks.
George
|
|
|
Post by Stefan on Mar 21, 2021 10:56:00 GMT -5
Yes - I reckon I have the same issue as Jo. English version attached for the non-Germans speakers
Jo is correct. If I untick the option (as above), the .CHM file works fine. With the option ticked, the main pane remains blank.
I suspect that with the Warning in place, some kind of internal script processing is disabled.
I see the same pop-up for every execution of SPFLITE which is not called SPFLITE2.EXE. I used to think that it was related to these versions being non-official releases and you 'sign' them in some way for an official release. But perhaps I just unticked the setting at some time in the dim distant past and thus SPFLITE2.EXE flies 'with permissions')
The ticked/unticked option applies to each individual file name. So I had to untick it for both .CHM files in your 2.4beta package as well as SPFLIT24.EXE itself.
|
|
|
Post by Stefan on Mar 21, 2021 11:10:26 GMT -5
v2.4beta Testers - be careful.I just lost a whole bunch of work because I switched from an edit Tab to the FM tab (PATHS) and received a series of "Untrapped error #9" messages. Each time I clicked <OK> to continue, another popped up naming a different module. I continued with OK for about a twenty times but it became apparent SPFLite was not going to recover so I had to <CANCEL>. Good Bye edit sessions. There's no crash file (I guess because technically it didn't crash) recorded anywhere of what these errors were so next time I'll write it down manually. I do not think v2.4 FM is ready for prime time just yet.
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 21, 2021 11:16:31 GMT -5
Security issues: I guess the only way to overcome this is:
1. As stated on the web So you can guess my choice.
2. Copy the CHM to the Install folder (as the Installer does). I guess Windows assumes if it is coming from a "Program Files" folder on C:, that it must have been placed there by some installer, which was given Admin authority to do so. Therefore it cannot be a security risk.
George
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 21, 2021 11:29:37 GMT -5
Stefan: Ouch! Was the switch back to FM just a mouse click, or an RC command? Was the FM previously already sitting at the PATHS display?
Also, even though you have the choice, clicking Continue never works, let alone after multiple times.
George
|
|
|
Post by Stefan on Mar 21, 2021 12:25:02 GMT -5
George,
Re the unscheduled closure...
I believe the FM display was most probably NOT on the Paths display I was editing a macro that uses the thinbasic "File" module and the functions were not highlighted. My intent was to add the relevant definitions to the MACRO.AUTO file.
I recall
(1) clicking on the FM Tab (2) then Paths (3) then on the entry about half way down the page for S:\DOCUMENTS\SPFLITE\AUTO because that's where I was headed.
By the way, I've been meaning to ask about this RC command (RECALL is it?) business. I take it clicking on one of the headings issues an 'RC <heading>' command under the covers.
I've seen "RC <somevalue>" appearing on the command line when I use the RETRIEVE facility in an EDIT tab which is irritating when I've not actually entered such command. The HELP dialog doesn't seem to describe the purpose of RECALL. Should RC be excluded from RETRIEVE processing?
Your last sentence (about not really having a choice to continue) really made me laugh... Thank You!
There have been occasions where 'continue' worked, but I never trust the application thereafter and always save what I have, close down the app and restart it.
SO, here's an idea (good or bad, you decide)
I do wonder, mostly following the discussion about spurious UNDO files you had with Robert, whether the UNDO 'buffer' (for want of a better moniker) could be harnessed to provide some kind of safety net for unsaved edit sessions in the event of a crash? Do you think that might be possible? There raises 2 questions: (a) is is practical/useful for this purpose and (b) how would one recover the data on restart. I'll leave that to your assessment.
Re the .CHM files...
I did copy all the ZIP content to the 'install' folder, albeit via the desktop to UNZIP it first and avoid Windows security moaning about ADMIN rights etc to write into C:\Program Files (x86)\SPFLite2. (it always annoys me as my userid does have ADMIN rights and is part of the ADMINISTRATOR group, etc but Windows won't let me write data into the system folder unless the source is a local disk. I know the issue is that GUI Explorer isn't running elevated. Warn me by all means but if an elevated user runs a program it should inherit elevated status!) Copying the CHM to the install folder doesn't help if you double-click it there to bring up the HELP dialog. You get the same pop-up. If you invoke it from within SPFLITE using the HELP command, you get the index pane but the main pane is just empty.
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Mar 22, 2021 5:38:19 GMT -5
Robert, I hate to waste money for no reason. We could easily click that checkbox, if we know. BTW, is seems to be some ADS things (:Zone.Identifier) when downloading from internet. No problem when doing install or 7zip unzip. (ADS was used by George some years ago for STATE data)
Jo
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 22, 2021 9:19:56 GMT -5
I'm confused about how you guys are getting those files in 'blocked' state. I just downloaded the Beta ZIP, unzipped it (twice, once with DOpus, and once with 7ZIP) and neither one of those shows files in blocked status. I know it's simple to remove, just open file properties and click UnBlock on the 1st General tab. But that still begs the question of how your files got that way? Is everyone seeing these files Blocked? Does it happen with the files created by the normal Installer, or just these unzipped Beta releases? Jo: Thanks. Yes the status in in an ADS stream. George
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 22, 2021 10:03:09 GMT -5
Robert: It's not just the money, it's the question "Why, after all these years without being signed, and without reported problems, are we now suddenly having problems?"
Besides, running around getting notarized copies of my identity proof is not high on my priorities lately.
George
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 22, 2021 10:27:50 GMT -5
Yeah, that's true. I guess I'm just immune to all that Windows crap. I just 'do whatever the heck it wants' and move on. It's like I said about AV false positives - 'like playing whack-a-mole'. Fix this and next year they'll come up with yet more hoops to jump through.
I'll check into it some more.
George
===> Just to be clear, regardless of my previous wise @#$% comments, I don't want you to feel forced to do this (or, anything else for that matter). I am just explaining the "why" part, that there is in fact a rationale for doing it. But, just because there's a rationale for something still doesn't mean you have to do it, only that you wouldn't be totally crazy if you did. - R
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 22, 2021 13:54:01 GMT -5
Robert: In checking, regardless of how reputable these CA registrars may be, I'm not exactly comfortable with passing them notarized copies of stuff like Passports, Drivers Licenses, Birth Certificates, Utility Bills etc. just to eliminate a nuisance message that everyone knows how to easily eliminate. And then you have to go through a phone interview etc. This is getting a bit ridiculous.
George
===> Jeez, I didn't know these certificate things were so intrusive into your privacy. I understand their position; how does a person prove they are who they say they are? Anyone could claim to be anybody. Without proof, how could the agencies issuing certificates say they provided any measure of security if they didn't vet the people they issued the certificates to? P.S. I am not sure I am among the "everyone" that knows how to "easily" eliminate this message in question. Remind me again? - R
---> Open Properties for the EXE, CHM etc. file. If the file is blocked, there will be an entry at the bottom of the General tab with an [UnBlock] button. Just click that.
George
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 22, 2021 14:10:08 GMT -5
Stefan: All:
After Stefan's reported crash, and his suggestion about maybe using UNDO files for recovery, I went code exploring.
Using the UNDO files is really messy. a) There are so many files. If you have 5-6 tabs open, and have SETUNDO=10, we're talking nearly 250 files to 'save', 'copy' or whatever. b) Then trying to figure out how to do a restart and actually recover from them.
So that idea quickly got tossed.
But since whatever might be done had to be done in the Crash routine anyway, I took the other route.
Since using the UNDO route, or my alternative method, both required that some kind of reasonable normal functionality was still possible (e.g. total havoc had not destroyed the program totally) I figured why not just SAVE the files.
So that is what has been put in. The Crash routine will prompt with an option to SAVE or not, and if chosen, the contents of each modified file will be saved back with an additional suffix of .CrashSave before continuing with termination.
In my testing this seems to work fine, but I was not exactly simulating a real crash. If things are really mucked up internally, and a 2nd crash occurs, there is no further choice but to just terminate.
So V2.4.21081 is now available in the 1st post in this thread.
George
|
|
|
Post by Stefan on Mar 23, 2021 5:56:45 GMT -5
George, I have never seen/noticed the 'UNBLOCK' part of the properties window you posted. I agree, that going through the motions (and ongoing(!) expense) of obtaining and annually renewing a certificate is possibly overkill. After all, you are not Computer Associates! (Thanks be to whatever deity you believe in) The CrashSave idea is great! I have downloaded and will give this a whirl. Of course, Murphy's law dictates that with this mitigation in place, SPFLite won't crash (just like it never rains when I carry an umbrella but starts as soon as I forget it in a shop I visited).
Might afford me an opportunity to see what happens to the .CHM files on a subsequent download - do I have to UN-tick all over again?
[UPDATE] Yes, I do have to UN-tick the box in the pop-up Security dialog (as Jo described) all over again. I have now spotted the UNLOCK part on the File Properties dialog.
Ticking UNLOCK does the same as UN-ticking the box in the pop-up Security dialog. For the subset of files released for v2.4beta, this only applies to the .CHM and the .EXE files. [/UPDATE]
|
|