Programming for CANalyzer in the Vector CAPL Browser, I can start typing "on message CAN4..." and it will auto complete things for me. I can see the messages. But after selecting a message, it always yells at me with "Expecting message name or identifier. Database missing?" as if it has no idea what I just put in even though it helped me put it there. What is the proper format for this? Is it different since I'm using ARXML instead of DBC? Is it just not compatible?
on message CAN4::Something_PDU // Auto-completes this but gives the error
{
}
on message CAN4.Something_PDU // Never auto-completes this and also doesn't work
{
}
on message CAN4::Something_PDU::Something_Auth // Auto-completes but not sure that's what I want and also doesn't compile with same error.
{
}
What is the right way and/or why doesn't it recognize the database despite its obvious ability to auto-complete? So confused!
I just faced a comparable issue when trying to get called by incoming ethernet signals. They are also defined in an *.arxml, in my case. However, the behavior of the Vector CAPL-Browser was exactly the same as you described.
I figured out that replacing on message with on signal does the trick and the script can get compiled:
on signal Something_Signal // autocompletion works and compiles
{
}
on signal Eth1::Something_Signal // autocompletion doesn't work but compiles
{
}
there is another way to do this: goto Windows symbols on the right panel in CAPL Editor >
try to find Something_PDU > drag and drop PDU_Name on your Code after on message
the CAPL event on message should be use with name
try use
on message Something_PDU
instead of
on message CAN4.Something_PDU
Related
For example if user dont fill this field and press "continue" button, this error message will pop up.
I wonder is there a way with Cypress that I check that error message was displayed?
Kind regards
You can make this assert : cy.get('input:invalid').should('have.length', 1)
See https://github.com/cypress-io/cypress-documentation/pull/1919/files how to assert the validation message
I know this is an older question but here is another solution.
cy.get(`[data-testid="XXXX"]`)
.invoke('prop', 'validationMessage')
.should((text: string) => {
expect(text).to.contain(YYYY);
});
Using the above code here is what happens:
You grab the input / textarea element using cy.get Note: it is recommended to use a data-testid or obtain the element by something less brittle so the test doesn't fail if the text changes etc.
Using the invoke method, you can check validationMessage against prop then then, obtain the inner text and use expect to check if it's valid. This is very handy if you use custom validation messages.
The error message is "make sure this cross-domain message is being sent to the intended domain".
This check rule from RSPEC-2819
Authors should not use the wildcard keyword ( *) in the targetOrigin argument in messages that contain any confidential information, as otherwise there is no way to guarantee that the message is only delivered to the recipient to which it was intended.
I assume it demands * cannot be used as targetOrigin, But It still shows warning when I use intended domain as targetOrigin like below:
Please somebody can tell me how to pass this check,
Any help would be appreciated
This rule detects only if a method postMessage is invoked on an object with a name containing window in it. Source code: PostMessageCheck.java. To bypass it, just assign your contentWindow object into different one, like this:
var content = this.elem.contentWindow;
content.postMessage('your message', window.location.origin);
Have faced similar issue in sonarQube. Below fix worked. Just get rid of using window object using directly.
Actual code:
window.parent.postMessage("data", parenturl);
Fix:
var content=window;
content.parent.postMessage("data",parenturl);
Been playing around with Uploadify v3 for few days now and just came to realize some of the codes have been rewritten, for example, onError is no longer existed, I am assuming it's been replaced by onUploadError.
What i am trying to achieve is to be able to return non-compliance error to users either through putting a message in the div (preferred method) or alert.
Looking at the closest solution How to trigger uploadify onError event handler, but it's outdated as it's for v2.
Using the same method as the outdated post up there, I have $("#fileInput").uploadify() with onUploadError added:
'onUploadError' : function(file,errorCode,errorMsg) {
var r = '<br />ERROR: ';
switch(errorMsg) {
case 405:
r += 'Invalid file type.';
break;
case 406:
r += 'Some other error.';
break;
}
alert(r);
setTimeout('$("#fileInput'+ ID + 'span.data").html("'+r+'");',111);
}
The problems I am having right now are:
Alert returns undefined using the codes above
setTimeout doesn't do anything
How can you solve these problems?
Maybe it's a little too late... but anyway I try to answer.
I'm also playing around with v3 of uploadify. onError() does no longer exists, it has been replaced by onUploadError(). The erroror object given by the old onError event does no longer exists. Now to check for the type of error you can switch on the errorCode argument (the second given in the callback), which is numeric. I've not found a table with all possible error codes, but doing some trials I discovered the following three error codes:
-200: HTTP errors (e.g. HTTP 500, 400, 404, etc.)
-220: IO errors (e.g. connection closed without response from the server, or errors while rading the source file from the user's PC)
-280: don't have actually fully understood what kind of errors they are, but is seems to be errors gracefully handled by uploadify. For example, if you try to add to the queue a file that is already in the queue, uploadify ask you whether you want to replace the file that's currently enqueued, or cancel the operation. If you cancel, an error is fired with code -280.
To check for the specific type of error, for example to get the specific HTTP error code (in case the error is an http error), you can check the error message, which is the third argument. This argument is a string, not a number, so you cannot use a switch .. case as in your example (or at least it's not that simple to use a switch .. case with strings). Simply use an if .. else if .. else.
Hope this can help...
I'm still looking for a complete list of the possible error codes given in the errorCode argument of the event handler. If someone knows, please tell me!
I know I can control the way Visual Studio handles exceptions according to their type and to the fact that they're eventually caught using the "Exception" dialog.
However, I've got a library that's internally throwing (and catching) an ArgumentOutOfRange exception when I'm calling a specific method. The exception is thrown (and caught by the library) maybe 1% of the time, but I'm calling this method a lot. The editor says it's by design (and indeed, the design they've chosen makes sense).
The thing is that I don't want Visual Studio to break each time the exception is thrown.
I don't want to stop breaking on ArgumentOutOfRange exceptions, as I may have some in my code and want to break on those.
I don't want to enable "just my code" debugging because I'm concerned about the exceptions thrown outside of my code (notably for performance reasons)
Is there a way to achieve this? I've been looking into attributes (such as DebuggerStepThrough), but haven't find something adequate yet.
Any hints on how to do this ?
I don't want to enable "just my code" debugging
Yeah, stop there right now. That is exactly the feature you need to not get the unwanted debugger breaks. If you don't want to know about somebody else's crappy code then flip that checkbox back on.
This invariably goes off the rails when programmers use exceptions for flow control. A very common crime. It takes two of them to turn that into a mess that turns a debugging session into a very tedious click nightmare. When you need the debugger feature that breaks on the first-chance exception then you basically lost if somebody else needed that as well.
Everybody hopes that they can magically use the [DebuggerNonUserCode] or [DebuggerHidden] or [DebuggerStepThrough] attributes to make that problem disappear. It doesn't. The other programmer did not think his code was unimportant enough to deserve those attributes. And, well, it wasn't because there's always a bug hidden in code that uses try/catch-em-all code. Pokémon code.
So Microsoft had to find another way to help programmers deal with crappy library code. They did. Tick that checkbox, bam, solved. Nothing you can do about that crappy code anyway, other than sending a nasty-gram to the author. Don't let us or Microsoft slow you down doing that as well, y'all have to get along to create a product that people like to use.
I think it's not possible in visual studio but it certainly is in WinDbg.
See for example http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alejacma/archive/2009/08/24/managed-debugging-with-windbg-breaking-on-an-exception-part-1.aspx
On a side note it seems that starting with visual studio 2010 you can load and use WinDbg extension DLLs directly providing aditional functionality (including possibly the one that you need) but I haven't tried this yet - see for example http://www.dotnetcurry.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=648
What you can do is use Concord, the debug engine that ships with Visual Studio (starting with version 2012). It's quite extensible through a nice managed API (and deployable using vsix technology), but it's not fully documented.
Concord has the concept of debug monitors, that we can hook using the IDkmDebugMonitorExceptionNotification Interface
The cool thing is this interface can monitor all exceptions thrown. It can also "suppress" any detected exception event, which is exactly what we need.
What I suggest is to start with the Hello World sample: . Download it, and make sure it runs as expected for you.
Now, just modify HelloWorld.vsdconfigxml like this:
<!--TODO: If you copy the sample, ensure to regenerate the GUID in this file -->
<!-- 1. change component level to something higher than 40500 -->
<ManagedComponent
ComponentId="51736b11-9fb4-4b6d-8aca-a10a2b7ae768"
ComponentLevel="40501"
AssemblyName="HelloWorld">
<!-- 2. change class full name to HelloWorld.ExceptionHandler, for example -->
<Class Name="HelloWorld.ExceptionHandler">
<Implements>
<InterfaceGroup>
<NoFilter/>
<!-- 3. change supported interface -->
<Interface Name="IDkmDebugMonitorExceptionNotification"/>
</InterfaceGroup>
</Implements>
</Class>
</ManagedComponent>
Then, just create an ExceptionHandler.cs class and put something like this in there:
public class ExceptionHandler : IDkmDebugMonitorExceptionNotification
{
private bool _unhandledDetected;
// we're being called!
public void OnDebugMonitorException(DkmExceptionInformation exception, DkmWorkList workList, DkmEventDescriptorS eventDescriptor)
{
if (_unhandledDetected)
{
// this will cause the program to terminate
eventDescriptor.Suppress();
return;
}
if (exception.ProcessingStage.HasFlag(DkmExceptionProcessingStage.Unhandled))
{
_unhandledDetected = true;
}
else if (exception.ProcessingStage.HasFlag(DkmExceptionProcessingStage.Thrown))
{
if (SuppressException(exception))
{
eventDescriptor.Suppress();
}
}
}
// should we suppress a thrown (1st chance) exception?
private bool SuppressException(DkmExceptionInformation exception)
{
// implement any custom logic in here, for example use the exception's name
if (exception.Name == typeof(ArgumentOutOfRangeException).FullName)
{
// for example, use the module (assembly) name
var clrAddress = (DkmClrInstructionAddress)exception.InstructionAddress;
var clrModule = clrAddress.ModuleInstance;
if (clrModule.Name == "TheUglyOne.dll")
return true; // we don't want this one!
}
return false;
}
}
When you run the project, you should see all exceptions being monitored (regardless of your 'just my code' and/or exception triggers settings), so what you just need to do is implement some logic to suppress the ones you really don't want to see. I've not checked but I suppose you could build your logic using custom attributes as the Dkm classes provide quite a lot of .NET metadata information.
Note: as you can see, there is some trickery to make sure the program will terminate normally.
I am trying to make firebug break when an error is detected. Specifically, I have some internal checks in my code, like assertions, that I want firebug to stop on when they fail. I have tried a few different ways and wondered what other people do? Here are the ways I have tried:
Put in some invalid code so that if errors out:
function assert(value) { if(! value) dbgbreak(); } // Fails because dbgbreak not defined
This works somewhat, but does not stop the code in such a way that I can see the stack or examine local variables.
Have it throw an exeption:
function assert(value) { if ! value) throw AssertExecption(); }
This is prettier, but still when I track exceptions I can't see the stack or the locals
Put a breakpoint on the assert failure. This works, however, it means everytime I run my code I have to manually put in a bunch of breakpoints.
What do other people do in terms of working with the debugger and asserts, and similar consistency checks?
Have you tried throwing down the "debugger" keyword in your script where you want it to stop?
On the console tab there is a button for breaking on all errors. Turn that on, and it will automatically break when an error occurs.
http://getfirebug.com/wiki/index.php/Console_Panel#Break_On_All_Errors