Winforms Application Fails To Launch [closed] - windows

Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a winforms application that is installed on multiple computers. Most of the time it works perfectly but for a small subset of users the application fails to launch. The only resolution I have found for this issue is to reinstall the application on the users machine.
I have included screenshots below showing the application working after a successful launch and also a screenshot showing what the user sees when the application fails
Normal Launch:
Failed Launch:
When the application fails, the startup form does not get rendered at all. On the users desktop there is nothing visible at all and the program is not outside of any visible area.
If anyone could provide answers or insight into the following questions it would be much appreciated.
What could cause this problem?
Windows or program related?
How could this be fixed?
I have included code snippets from the startup form below
Starting code:
private static void Main()
{
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.SetUnhandledExceptionMode(UnhandledExceptionMode.CatchException);
Application.Run(new Timelord());
}
public Timelord()
{
this.InitializeComponent();
this.BringToFront();
this.Focus();
// Displays a date and gets the version of the program
lblDate.Text = DateTime.Now.ToShortDateString();
Version version = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version;
if (ApplicationDeployment.IsNetworkDeployed)
{
lblVersion.Text = string.Format("v{0}", ApplicationDeployment.CurrentDeployment.CurrentVersion.ToString(4));
}
// Loads the comboboxes for selection
this.loadComboUser();
this.loadComboCompany();
this.loadComboTick();
}

I think what is happening is that there is an error being thrown in your Timelord constructor under certain conditions. Since Timelord is the "startup" object for your application, a failure to create its instance properly would cause serious problems. Here is what I would recommend doing to identify those conditions, and to eliminate the issue with the form only being partially created.
I am assuming based on your comment about the program reading from a database that one or more of the following methods perform data access calls to a database
this.loadComboUser();
this.loadComboCompany();
this.loadComboTick();
You typically want to avoid method calls, ESPECIALLY data access calls in a constructor. There are many reasons for this that I won't list here, but this other stackoverflow article explains some of them.
Is it OK to put a database initialization call in a C# constructor?
To correct these issues, implement an eventhandler for the load event and move all of your Timelord constructor code into the Load event handler. The Form.Load event fires after the constructor is complete but before a form is displayed for the first time.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.windows.forms.form.load?view=netframework-4.7.2
Here is how I would recommend restructuring your Timelord object.
public Timelord()
{
this.InitializeComponent();
}
Private Sub Timelord_Load(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load
{
Try
{
this.BringToFront();
this.Focus();
// Displays a date and gets the version of the program
lblDate.Text = DateTime.Now.ToShortDateString();
Version version = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version;
if (ApplicationDeployment.IsNetworkDeployed)
{
lblVersion.Text = string.Format("v{0}", ApplicationDeployment.CurrentDeployment.CurrentVersion.ToString(4));
}
// Loads the comboboxes for selection
this.loadComboUser();
this.loadComboCompany();
this.loadComboTick();
}
Catch(Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show($"The following error occurred in the Timelord constructor {Environment.NewLine}{ex.Message}")
}
}
Making this change will allow the Timelord constructor to completely create the object, then the Load event will run and load any data into the UI. This way, if an error occurs, you will have at least completely created the Timelord Form and can catch the error.
What could cause this problem?
Your startup object (Timelord()) throwing an error in the constructor, therefore not properly creating object.
Windows or program related?
Program related
How could this be fixed?
Separating your Forms logic so that the only code in the constructor is your instantiation logic.
Implementing Try/Catch blocks to trap errors

Related

Async/Await - not awaiting the async method [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Am I right to ignore the compiler warning for lacking await for this async call?
(3 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Below is my code. Compiler gives warning because AddLog is not awaited. I do not want to await this call and want to continue executing next lines. I dont have any concern if the exception is consumed also. Is it fine to ignore the warning?
public async Task Add()
{
this.AddLog( "Add executing" );
// Logic to Add Customer
}
public async Task AddLog( string message )
{
// Write to DB
}
Assuming you truly want to call the AddLog method in a fire-and-forget way, then you have a few options.
If, by design, you want AddLog to always be invoked as a fire-and-forget method, then you could change the signature to not return a Task.
public async void AddLog( string message ) // change Task to void
{
// Write to DB
// WARNING: Make sure that exceptions are handled in here.
}
However, if you do this, you better make sure that exceptions are properly handled from within the AddLog method. If any exception goes unhandled, it will crash your process.
Another option is to change the way you invoke AddLog to clearly state your intent that you don't care about when the Task completes, or about any exceptions that may be raised. You can do this by defining an empty continuation (Well, almost empty. See my edit at the bottom of the post for why it's a good idea to read the Task.Exception property at the very least).
// see EDIT for why the Task.Exception property is read here.
this.AddLog("Add executing").ContinueWith(t => { var observed = t.Exception; });
With either option, unless you are awaiting on other code inside your Add method that you are not showing us, then there is no longer any point in defining your Add method as async. You can simply turn it into a regular synchronous method. Otherwise, you'll then get another warning telling you that This async method lacks 'await' operators and will run synchronously....
public void Add() // no need for "async Task"
{
// see EDIT for why the Task.Exception property is read here.
this.AddLog("Add executing").ContinueWith(t => { var observed = t.Exception; });
// Logic to Add Customer
}
In any case, I wouldn't simply ignore the warning. Much like sometimes we get the warning Use of unassigned local variable 'x' in cases where we know that our code is fine, we typically don't ignore the warning. Instead, we may explicitly initialize the variable to null just to make our intent clear, and make the warning go away. Similarly, you can make the warning go away by making your intentions more explicit to the compiler using one of the above options.
EDIT: Word of caution about unobserved exceptions
I should also mention that even with the ContinueWith option, you may have to be careful about unhandled exceptions that come from your AddLog method.
According to this article, the way unobserved exceptions from tasks are handled has changed between .NET 4.0 and .NET 4.5. So, if you are still running .NET 4.0, or if you forcing .NET 4.0 exception behavior via configuration, you run the risk that unhandled exceptions will crash your process whenever the task gets GC-collected and finalized.
To make sure that this is not a problem, you can adjust the continuation to explicitly observe the exception, if any is present. You don't actually need to do anything with it, you just need to read it. This is one way to do it safely:
this.AddLog("Add executing").ContinueWith(t => { var observed = t.Exception; });
I've updated my earlier examples above to use the safer version of the continuation.
I would make add() non async since it isn't...and then task.run on add log

AX2012 - Pre-Processed RecId parameter not found

I made a custom report in AX2012, to replace the WHS Shipping pick list. The custom report is RDP based. I have no trouble running it directly (with the parameters dialog), but when I try to use the controller (WHSPickListShippingController), I get an error saying "Pre-Processed RecId not found. Cannot process report. Indicates a development error."
The error is because in the class SrsReportProviderQueryBuilder (setArgs method), the map variable reportProviderParameters is empty. I have no idea why that is. The code in my Data provider runs okay. Here is my code for running the report :
WHSWorkId id = 'LAM-000052';
WHSPickListShippingController controller;
Args args;
WHSShipmentTable whsShipmentTable;
WHSWorkTable whsWorkTable;
clWHSPickListShippingContract contract; //My custom RDP Contract
whsShipmentTable = WHSShipmentTable::find(whsWorkTable.ShipmentId);
args = new Args(ssrsReportStr(WHSPickListShipping, Report));
args.record(whsShipmentTable);
args.parm(whsShipmentTable.LoadId);
contract = new clWHSPickListShippingContract();
controller = new WHSPickListShippingController();
controller.parmReportName(ssrsReportStr(WHSPickListShipping, Report));
controller.parmShowDialog(false);
controller.parmLoadFromSysLastValue(false);
controller.parmReportContract().parmRdpContract(contract);
controller.parmReportContract().parmRdpName(classStr(clWHSPickListShippingDP));
controller.parmReportContract().parmRdlContract().parmLanguageId(CompanyInfo::languageId());
controller.parmArgs(args);
controller.startOperation();
I don't know if I'm clear enough... But I've been looking for a fix for hours without success, so I thought I'd ask here. Is there a reason why this variable (which comes from the method parameter AifQueryBuilderArgs) would be empty?
I'm thinking your issue is with these lines (try removing):
controller.parmReportContract().parmRdpContract(contract);
controller.parmReportContract().parmRdpName(classStr(clWHSPickListShippingDP));
controller.parmReportContract().parmRdlContract().parmLanguageId(CompanyInfo::languageId());
The style I'd expect to see with your contract would be like this:
controller = new WHSPickListShippingController();
contract = controller.getDataContractObject();
contract.parmWhatever('ParametersHere');
controller.parmArgs(args);
And for the DataProvider clWHSPickListShippingDP, usually if a report is using a DataProvider, you don't manually set it, but the DP extends SRSReportDataProviderBase and has an attribute SRSReportParameterAttribute(...) decorating the class declaration in this style:
[SRSReportParameterAttribute(classstr(MyCustomContract))]
class MyCustomDP extends SRSReportDataProviderBase
{
// Vars
}
You are using controller.parmReportContract().parmRdpContract(contract); wrong, as this is more for run-time modifications. It's typically used for accessing the contract for preRunModifyContract overloads.
Build your CrossReference in a development environment then right click on \Classes\SrsReportDataContract\parmRdpContract and click Add-Ins>Cross-reference>Used By to see how that is generally used.
Ok, so now I feel very stupid for spending so much time on that error, when it's such a tiny thing...
The erronous line is that one :
controller.parmReportName(ssrsReportStr(WHSPickListShipping, Report));
Because WHSPickListShipping is the name of the AX report, but I renamed my custom report clWHSPickListShipping. What confused me was that my DataProvider class was executing as wanted.

Turn off FireFox driver refresh POST warning

I have inherited some GEB tests that are testing logging into a site (and various error cases/validation warnings).
The test runs through some validation failures and then it attempts to re-navigate to the same page (just to refresh the page/dom) and attempts a valid login. Using GEB's to() method, it detects that you are attempting to navigate to the page you are on, it just calls refresh - the problem here is that attempts to refresh the last POST request, and the driver displays the
"To display this page, Firefox must send information that will repeat any action (such as a search or order confirmation) that was performed earlier"
message - as the test is not expecting this popup, it hangs and the tests timeout.
Is there a way to turn off these warnings in Firefox webdriver? or to auto-ignore/accept them via Selenium or GEB?
GEB Version: 0.9.2,
Selenium Version: 2.39.0
(Also tried with minor version above: 0.9.3 & 2.40.0)
Caveats:
I know about the POST/Re-direct/GET pattern - but am not at liberty to change the application code in this case
The warning message only causes an issue intermittently (maybe 1 in 5 times) - I have put this down to speed/race conditions whereby the test completes the next actions before the message appears - I know a possible solution is to update tests to wait for message to appear and then accept, but my question is, is there a global setting that can just avoid these being triggered/displayed?
That refresh() is there to work around an issue with IE driver which ignores calls to driver.get() with the same url as the current one.
Instead of monkey patching Browser class (which might bite you somewhere down the line or might not) I would change the url of your login page class. You might for example add an insignificant query string - I think that simply a ? at the end should suffice. The driver.currentUrl == newUrl condition will evaluate to false and you will not see that popup anymore.
If I understand you issue properly this might help. In Groovy you can modify a class on the fly.
We use Spock with Geb and I placed this in a Super class which all Spock Spec inherit from. Eg: QSpec extends GebSpec.
It is the original method slightly modified with the original code commented out so you know what has been changed. I use this technique in several required places to alter Geb behaviour.
static {
Browser.metaClass.go = { Map params, String url ->
def newUrl = calculateUri(url, params)
// if (driver.currentUrl == newUrl) {
// driver.navigate().refresh()
// } else {
// driver.get(newUrl)
// }
driver.get(newUrl)
if (!page) {
page(Page)
}
}
}

Is there a way to prevent Visual Studio from breaking on exceptions in a specific method?

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.

VB6.0 : initialize method of a User Control called when loading a VB project

Whenever we load a VB project it will call Initialize event of a User Control ( if there is any in the project). My problem is that is that I have some code in UserControl_Initialize that will try to create instances of other COM objects. On my build machine those controls are not registered. One option is to move the code to some other method other than Initialize but I want to know if there is a better solution? Somewhere I found that we may have a check to see if the calling application is VB editor then skip the initialization code...
You can use:
If Not Me.DesignMode Then
...
End If
An other solution we used was a little function which can be used globally:
Public Function IsRuntime() as Boolean
On Error Goto NotRuntime
Debug.Print(1 / 0)
IsRuntime = True
Exit Function
NotRuntime:
IsRuntime = False
End If
Don't know if it is syntactically well formed, but the idea should be clear:
Only in the IDE the debug statement is called.
This only happens if your project was saved with the form designer open: this means that at startup the form is displayed (maybe in the background) and consequently, all controls on it need to be initialized. Hence, your user control initializer is called if this control is used on the form.
To prevent this, simply save the project with the form designer closed.

Resources