Before I add values to my current cache, I want to be sure, it was not refreshed for some reason.
I looked for an option like PubComp.Caching.Core.CacheManager.Count/IsEmpty but could not find anything similar.
I don't care about the number of elements exist, only if empty or not.
Is there a workaround to do it?
Related
I'm trying to get a text from a textfield with Get Text, but in some cases this field is optional and the robot crashes because it doesn't have anything in the field.
You have multiple options. It's hard to say which one fits best you so here is a pool of possible solutions:
when NOT using the Modern Design, you can easily use the Element exists activity, self explaining
if you use the Modern Design and miss old activities like Element exists, go to the filter dropdown and select Show Classic, this way you are now also able to choose Element exists
you could also wrap such failing activities into a Try Catch, then your process wont fail, but a Try Catch should always be the last way out
when using the Modern Design, you can try Find Element, if the returned object is empty you know that it was not found, make sure to set a proper Timeout here, otherwise you wait for 30 seconds
but on your case it could be better to use an Image exists or Find Image Matches as you said you are looking for text in a textfield, just inverse it and look for an empty textfield, and if you have no matches all is fine
But to be honest, I would go for the Element exists. Give this a try, but be aware that in the future this activity might be replaced by something else and your process will need a little bit of rework.
Hope some1 can help.
I copied this grid from another WP and seems like its not working. No clue why. Checked all I can but it doesnt work. In the other WP it works properly with another grids.
Any ideas?
Check the columns in the new grid. Does it have the same attributes than the source grid?
If you copied them from a different KB, it is highly possible that the attributes does not keep the same...
The specifier tries to find to which table the attributes belong. Don't think 'it should work because I copied it from a working wkp' , instead think 'some attribute is messing the specification' and take one by one out until it works, check if the obtained table is the desired one or another one. If it is the desired one, then the last attribute you withdrew is the one messing up the specification process. If it is another table than the desired one, try to withdraw from the grid the remaining attributes and put the ones you withdrew before back into the grid, and repeat the process. At some point you will understand which one is messing up. Also keep in mind that there might be other places with attributes, such as in the 'Load Event', they also influence the process.
It means that Genexus can not resolve the base table, you may be using (or referencing) attributes of different transactions and genexus can not resolve the relationship between them.
I need to find which link among turtle links is the oldest or newest , now I am using a property called , link-order which stores this value for each link and I find it using min-of my-out-links [link-order]
Is there any better way to do this? Without the need to have link-order attribute for all the links?
The only alternative I can think of would be to have a global list of all links, and whenever a link is created, stick it on the end (and remove any nobody entries that have accumulated because of links dying). Then the oldest link is always the first item in the list.
Your original idea seems fine to me too though — neither approach seems obviously superior to the other. I'd probably pick your idea just because it seems a little simpler and less error-prone to code.
I am unable to change the order of modules in Joomla1.6. I tried by clicking the order option . But there are many modules with the same order number and it does not move up or down even after using the arrow keys.
Any thoughts?
Reorder them yourself. Type in 1,2,3,4, etc. according to the manner you want them to be in, then click the 'save' icon next to the order header.
Then refresh your page to ensure they've reorganized appropriately.
When ordering anything in Joomla, make sure the list you are looking at it ordered by the ordering column first. Most times you can not change ordering at all, unless your list is sorted by ordering first.
I know this is a very old question, and Joomla is currently 3.4.8, soon to release 3.5, and the above instructions do not apply any longer, but I thought I should add a small detail here.
In case you are working with a complex template that has many pre-installed modules at various module positions, you may come up with this:Module ordering may not work properly if you are filtering the results in the module manager using a search keyword.
Make sure that you clear search, navigate to the position you need re-arranged (ideally, use the filters on the left column to only show that specific position) and then re-arrange. It should work.
Took me a while to realize.
GetDllDirectory produces an ambiguous value. When the string this call produces is empty, it means one of the following:
nobody has called SetDllDirectory
somebody passed NULL to SetDllDirectory
somebody passed an empty string to SetDllDirectory
The first two cases are equivalent for my purposes, but the third case is a problem. If I want to write save/restore code (call GetDllDirectory to save the "old" value, SetDllDirectory to set a "new" value temporarily, and later SetDllDirectory again to restore the "old" value), I run the risk of reversing some other programmer's intent.
If the other programmer intended for the current working directory to be in the DLL search order (in other words, one of the first two bullets is true), and I pass an empty string to SetDllDirectory, I will be taking the current working directory out of the DLL search order, reversing the other programmer's intent.
Can anyone suggest an approach to eliminate or work around this ambiguity?
P.S. I know having the current working directory in the DLL search order could be interpreted as a security hole. Nevertheless, it is the default behavior, and my code is not in a position to undo that; my code needs to be compatible with the expectations of all potential callers, many of which are large and old and beyond my control.
No fix for this. Between a rock and a hard place, you ought to assume that NULL was passed. There is already a way to enable safe searching with a registry setting.