Sub-macro: should they run if Disabled?

[terrypin]

No big deal, but I've only just noticed that a macro called with the Macro Run command from within a 'parent macro' always gets run, even if set to Disabled.

 

Is that correct behaviour? Desirable behaviour?

 

--

Terry, East Grinstead, UK

[paul]

I can think of arguments both ways:

- the argument in favour of not being allowed to run a disabled macro is self-evident

- but do you really want the action of disabling a macro to affect other macros that call it?

 

On balance, I think Insight has made the right decision (though it could just as easily be an oversght on their part!).

[terrypin]

Thanks Paul. I feel roughly the same, just took me by surprise. It would be interesting to get some comment from Insight on whether/why it was designed this way.

 

--

Terry, East Grinstead, UK

[Cory]

I agree with Paul and it was probably one of those tings that was never considered and could go both ways. FWIW I always check my macro for the occurrence of other Macro Runs in cases like these. I use a simple little macro that reports on all occurrences of a string in a information export report form MEP. Give the line number of each occurrence. Works pretty cool.

 

 

[terrypin]

I use a simple little macro that reports on all occurrences of a string in a information export report form MEP. Give the line number of each occurrence. Works pretty cool.

 

Agreed, I found it very handy - but not any more, as I said here!

http://pgmacros.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=4666

 

Are you saying it still works for you in 4.2.1.1? Crashes hard here as soon as the search starts.

 

I sent the MEX to Insight 9 days ago but haven't heard from them.

 

--

Terry, East Grinstead, UK

[kevin]

I sent the MEX to Insight 9 days ago but haven't heard from them.

As stated multiple times, including the Report a Bug webpage:

 

You will not receive a personal email response unless we need more information.

See the pinned topic above Reporting Bugs and Requesting Features:

 

If you need a personal response to a question or request contact us directly via email or telephone.

and Reporting Bugs and Requesting Features:

 

If you want a personal reply send an email to Insight Software Services Support.

and

 

if you enter the report or request our tracking system will send you an email message when that issue is resolved.

[Cory]

The bug was reported years ago but never fixed. The other day I bumped into it again and send the crash reports but I never got the email saying it had been assigned. Also filed a bugrep. After awhile I called and Jason had me talk to Chris about it. I sent hime the samples I sent before. It sounded like he was anxious to look at it right away. I still have received no word. I'm not going to make any more bug reports on this and have just accepted that it's not a high priority item.

 

 

[Cory]

Are you saying it still works for you in 4.2.1.1? Crashes hard here as soon as the search starts.

From what I remember it's a line count thing. I believe I created a simple Text File Process macro once to illustrate and determined that it was crashing at a certain line number every time. I can't remember for sure but it was something like 4000 lines. Seems like it would be something fairly easy for ISS to identify and fix but evidently it's more complicated than that.

 

A lot of the bugs I've found are apparently not experienced by other users so they get a low priority. If I was ISS I would certainly work on th ebugs that affect the most users first. But to be frank I do get a little frustrated at times with things like this never seem to get fixed.

 

I sent the MEX to Insight 9 days ago but haven't heard from them.

Me neither until the other day. See my response to Kevin, especially the bit about not getting a tracking number. This is one of those old bugs from, hell, could be a couple years ago now. There is a post in here someplace where I talk about this macro and we discovered the crash.

 

The good news is that there are a couple of work-arounds. First divide your macro information file up into smaller files. This is what I usually do. In fact I even was thinking of writing a routine in there that would do this automatically or suck the macro information file and split the macros into an array. The other thing I have not tried is to use ASCII File Process with Tab as the delimiter. This way the first element can be used instead.

[terrypin]

The bug was reported years ago but never fixed.

Are we both singing from the same hymn sheet here Cory? What 'bug' are you referring to? I'm talking about the issue I described in that post, namely that I can no longer run one particular macro - your macro 'Search and report on macro text'. I was using it OK until the recent release of the latest ME Pro version 4.2.1.1. So I don't follow what you're saying was reported 'years ago'. So far I haven't come across any other macro that worked before but fails in this version. That doesn't mean there aren't any, of course, just that I haven't tried running them yet!

 

The other day I bumped into it again and send the crash reports but I never got the email saying it had been assigned.

 

I enquired about that on 15th Sep and Kevin replied: "If a newly reported issue is already in our tracking system it is merged with the other issue. The system may not send an acknowledgement email with the tracking number." I responded that it would be nice to be told that.

 

Also filed a bugrep. After awhile I called and Jason had me talk to Chris about it. I sent hime the samples I sent before. It sounded like he was anxious to look at it right away. I still have received no word. I'm not going to make any more bug reports on this and have just accepted that it's not a high priority item.

 

That would seem to imply that it wasn't already in the tracking system, and so you should have had an acknowledgement.

 

Anyway, can you confirm whether that macro does or doesn't run for you on 4.2.1.1 please?

 

At present, and this has happened twice in the last week, when I want to find a string, I have to re-install 4.1.6.1, run your excellent macro, then re-install 4.2.1.1!

 

--

Terry, East Grinstead, UK

[Cory]

We are talking about the same macro. I searched just now and found at least one references to it back in January of 2009 that implied I had already had it for some time at that point. It has been my experience that the macro runs fine up to a certain line count. I opted to log all commands and did the math based on the number of lines logged per iteration and I seem to remember it being around 4000. And if memory serves that was what the problem was a long time ago. It would work on small macro file exports but not large ones. Try taking your macro file export and deleting everything after about 100 lines and see if it works. It would be good to know if you see the same thing.

 

I did a quick experiment just now and created a simple text file with 10k lines and then ran a simple Text File Process against it. Worked just fine so it's not as simple as the line count alone. But ISS has my sample files so they should be able to tell fairly easily.

 

Hmmmm.... I do remember something we were working on had an issue with lines more than a certain length. Maybe if I get time later I'll look at the sample I sent them and see if there's anything odd about that one line.

 

 

[terrypin]

What really puzzles me, and suggests that it's a newly-introduced bug, is that it works in 4.1.6.1 and not 4.2.1.1, using the same exported file.

 

--

Terry, East Grinstead, UK

[Cory]

That is another good clue especially since I know they recently did some work on the Text File Process command.