This was a problem in Qt 5.4.0. and has been fixed in Qt 5.6.0
I have an application that allows the user to launch a process with QProcess.
Initially I wanted to connect the QProcess::finished signal to a lambda function, but since it is an overloaded function, it appears that it can't be done due to ambiguity of which function to connect with.
Therefore, I've experimented with monitoring the state change of QProcess.
void MainWindow::on_actionLaunchApplication_triggered()
{
// launch the file open dialog for the user to select a file
QString filePath = QFileDialog::getOpenFileName(this, "Select Application to Launch", "/Applications");
if(filePath == "")
return;
QProcess* proc = new QProcess(this);
// can't connect to QProcess::exited with lambda, due to its overloaded function, so will check state changed instead
connect(proc, &QProcess::stateChanged, [filePath, proc, this](QProcess::ProcessState state){
if(state == QProcess::NotRunning)
{
qDebug << "Deleting proc";
disconnect(proc, &QProcess::stateChanged, 0 , 0);
proc->deleteLater();
}
});
proc->start(filePath);
}
Generally this works as expected; the application selected is executed and different applications can be selected to run this way, one after another. Quitting such an application results in execution of the tidyup code that deletes the QProcess.
However, if an application that has been launched with QProcess is quit and then selected again for execution, it fails to launch and instead the process is deleted immediately from the call to deleteLater in the lambda function.
So, what's going on? Considering that a new QProcess is created each time, why would it work the first time for each application, but if such an application is quit and selected to launch again, it is instantly deleted?
I'm fully aware that I can connect to QProcess::finished without a lambda function or via the SIGNAL and SLOT macros. This question is academic and I'm looking for an understanding of what's going on here.
In response to answers and comments so far, it looks like this is a Qt bug. Connecting to the QProcess::finished slot results in the same problem of an application only being launched the first time.
// launch the file open dialog for the user to select a file
QString filePath = QFileDialog::getOpenFileName(this, "Select Application to Launch", "/Applications");
if(filePath == "")
return;
QProcess* proc = new QProcess();
connect(proc, static_cast<void (QProcess::*)(int)>(&QProcess::finished), [filePath, proc, this](int exitStatus) {
Q_UNUSED(exitStatus);
Log("Deleting proc for launched app");
proc->deleteLater();
proc->disconnect(proc, static_cast<void (QProcess::*)(int)>(&QProcess::finished), 0, 0);
});
proc->start(filePath);
In fact, you can connect to the signal! All you have to do is to tell you compiler which signal it should choose, because it can't decide this.
There is a good answere to that problem in this question: Qt5 overloaded Signals and Slots.
This won't solve your problem with the strange delete behavior, but maybe the problem will solve itself this way.
The finished signal indicates a state transition. But instead, you're checking for a static state, not a transition.
You should keep a property related to the process to indicate that it is running or starting, and then only delete the process when it stops running or fails to start.
void MainWindow::on_actionLaunchApplication_triggered()
{
auto locations = QStandardPaths::standardLocations(QStandardPaths::ApplicationsLocation);
if (locations.isEmpty())
locations << QString();
auto filePath = QFileDialog::getOpenFileName(this, "Select Application to Launch",
locations.first());
if (filePath.isEmpty())
return;
bool wasActive = false; // upon capture, it becomes a per-process field
auto proc = new QProcess(this);
connect(proc, &QProcess::stateChanged, [=](QProcess::ProcessState state) mutable {
if (state == QProcess::Running) {
qDebug() << "Process" << proc << "is running";
wasActive = true;
}
else if (state == QProcess::Starting) {
qDebug() << "Process" << proc << "is starting";
wasActive = true;
}
else if (state == QProcess::NotRunning && wasActive) {
qDebug() << "Will delete a formerly active process" << proc;
proc->deleteLater();
}
else /* if (state == QProcess::NotRunning) */
qDebug() << "Ignoring a non-running process" << proc;
});
proc->start(filePath);
}
Related
OS windows. I would like to create a back-buffer before paint. I want to use boost::asio::thread_pool to increase speed. I need to stop back-buffer creating, if my "input data"(tasks) is updated.
I wrote Test_CreateAndCancel function to simplify test.
class Task
{
public:
virtual void operator()
{
std::cout << "Task started " << std::endl;
DoSomeWork();
std::cout << "Task in progress" << std::endl;
for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i)
boost::this_thread::sleep_for(boost::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
std::cout << "Task ended" << std::endl;
}
};
using TaskPtr = std::shared_ptr<Task>;
void Test_CreateAndCancel(std::vector<TaskPtr> &tasks)
{
//start back-buffer creating
boost::asio::thread_pool _thread_pool(4);
for (auto task : tasks)
{
boost::asio::post(thread_pool, [task] {
task->operator()();
});
}
// simulate cancel
thread_pool.stop(); // wait untill all threads are finished?
}
vector tasks has 4 items.
Result is: 4 "Task started" "Task in progress" "Task ended"
I am thinking to add custom IsCanceled() checkes in task::operator().
Is there are any other ways to make my tasks cancelable?
How can I implement cancel logic?
I will be grateful for any advices
Thanks
The easiest approach is to add a (probably atomic) variable "please_stop" to your Task and
query it inside the operator() regularly
set it from the outside (another task)
The basic problem is that you cannot cancel an operation that is running in a different task. You can only "ask it politely" to stop working.
boost::thread has an interrupt mechanism (see the link, #sehe posted above). This basically does not do anything different than what I suggested, except it's baked into boost::thread. There are certain "interruption points" that will query the "please stop" state and throw an exception, if it is set.
You have to catch the exception though, otherwise the thread itself will stop and you want only the operation to stop.
So you could do something like this:
class Task {
virtual void operator()()
{
try {
do_something();
boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::chrono::seconds(10000);
}
catch (boost::thread_interrupted&) { //
handle_please_stop_request();
}
}
};
// and later
task_thread.interrupt();
The problem with this approach is that you have to know the thread and you probably want to interrupt not the thread but the operation. Which is why the atomic approach has its charms.
BTW, your example has several problems. The task operation (operator()()) never stops at all. You are creating a task pool for every vector of tasks. I assume these are just artifacts of your example and your real world code is different.
One thing though. I haven't looked into asio::thread_pool yet, but I am missing the boost::asio::work object. Search stackoverflow on how to use the work object.
I am trying to implement a game loop in FLTK
void SnakeFLTK::init() {
_display = new Fl_Window(900, 600);
if (!_display)
throw SnakeFLTKException("Couldn't make fltk window!");
_display->color(FL_BLACK);
_display->show();
while (!_doExit) {
std::cout << "-->" << std::endl;
}
Fl::run();
}
the problem I have is the window is not showing. I want to keep showing and redrawing on the window in the while (!_doExit) loop and it's important that I use _doExit. I have tried using
while (Fl::wait > 0)
but this method seems to have its own loop that waits for events.
How do I Implement a loop like I did and show the window?
FLTK is doing nothing until Fl::run is called. And as this, you can not do anything after you call Fl::run because the function returns only if main window is closed.
Exactly for doing something while Fltk itself is "running" you can register to the idle loop like this:
void CallbackFunc( void* )
{
std::cout << "Hallo" << std::endl;
}
int main() {
auto _display = new Fl_Window(900, 600);
_display->color(FL_BLACK);
_display->show();
Fl::add_idle( CallbackFunc );
Fl::run();
}
In the given callback function you can do the drawing or anything youl like to achieve in FLTK which is not driven by events coming from the active widgets itself.
Used Versions: OMNeT++ 5.0 with iNET 3.4.0
I created some code, which gives me reliable results in ‘step-by-step’- or ‘animated’ simulation mode. The moment I change to ‘fast’ or ‘express’ mode, it gets buggy. The following simplified example will explain my problems:
void MyMacSlave::handleSelfMessage(cMessage *msg)
{
if (msg == CheckAck) {
std::cout << “CheckAck: “ << msg << std::endl;
}
if (msg == transmissionAnnouncement) {
std::cout << “transmissionAnncouncement: “ << msg << std::endl;
}
if (msg == transmissionEvent) {
std::cout << “transmissionEvent: “ << msg << std::endl;
}
delete msg;
}
There is a function, which is called for handling self-messages. Depending on what self-message I got, I need to run different if queries.
I get this correct output in step-by-step or animated mode:
CheckAck: (omnetpp::cMessage)CheckAck
transmissionAnncouncement: (omnetpp::cMessage)transmissionAnncouncement
transmissionEvent: (omnetpp::cMessage)transmissionEvent
And this is the strange output I get using fast or express mode:
CheckAck: (omnetpp::cMessage)CheckAck
transmissionAnncouncement: (omnetpp::cMessage)transmissionAnncouncement
transmissionAnncouncement: (omnetpp::cMessage)transmissionEvent
transmissionEvent: (omnetpp::cMessage)transmissionEvent
The third output line shows that the self-message is ‘transmissionEvent’, but the ‘if (msg == transmissionAnnouncement)’ is mistakenly considered as true as well.
As shown above I get different simulation results, depending on the simulation mode I am using. What is the reason for the different output? Why is there even a difference?
As Christoph and Rudi mentioned there was something wrong with the memory allocation. When a pointer is de-allocated and a new one is allocated on the same memory, there will be something wrong. The difference regarding the usage of different running modes is just a sign that there are errors to that effect.
In my case it was useful to check for message-kinds like:
if (msg->getKind() == checkAckAckType) {
instead of the method used in the originally question. I defined the message-kinds using simple enums.
can somebody explain me the following code please :
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
lblNCK.Text = cncType;
});
Here is where it comes from :
string cncType;
if (objDMainCncData != null)
{
int rc = objDMainCncData.Init(objDGroupManager.Handle);
if (rc == 0)
{
cncType = objDMainCncData.GetCncIdentifier();
if (cncType != string.Empty)
{
if (cncType.ToUpper().IndexOf("+") != -1)
_bFXplus = true;
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
lblNCK.Text = cncType;
});
}
}
else
{
DisplayMessage("objDMainCncData.Init() failed ! error : " + rc.ToString());
}
}
}
I don't get the use of "this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate".
Thank you by advance.
Peter.
Strange that no one has answered this.
Lets take it in pieces:
this.Invoke: This is a synchronization mechanism, contained in all controls. All graphic/GUI updates, must only be executed from the GUI thread. (This is most likely the main thread.) So if you have other threads (eg. worker threads, async functions etc.) that will result in GUI updates, you need to use the Invoke. Otherwise the program will blow up.
delegate{ ... }: This is a anonymous function. You can think of it as "creating a function on the fly". (Instead of finding a space in the code, create function name, arguments etc.)
(MethodInvoker): The MethodInvoker is just the name of the delegate, that Invoke is expecting. Eg. Invoke expects to be given a function, with the same signature as the "MethodInvoker" function.
What happens, is that Invoke is given a function pointer. It wakes up the GUI thread through a mutex and tells it to executes the function (through the function pointer). The parent thread then waits for the GUI thread to finish the execution. And it's done.
I'm trying to write a windows batch file in order to resume a windows process that gets Suspended. I'm using pssuspend (from pstools) to resume the process. However, I'm trying to write windows batch file script that will continually get the status of a process (e.g. myExe.exe). If the script is not suspended, I would like for it to keep checking if it is suspended. If it is suspended, I would like it to run the pssuspend code. I'm unsure how to obtain the Suspend status. So far I have this:
if myExe.exe == "Suspend" (
pssuspend -r myExe.exe
suspend_fix.bat
) else (
suspend_fix.bat
)
Thanks for your help!
Windows services (that are created with the right attributes) can be suspended, but I am not sure how an executable can be suspended, or what exactly you mean by that.
If you mean that the program has been stopped, and when it does, you want to restart it, then here are a couple of code blocks that I have used to determine if a program is running:
1) by checking to see if the exe name exists, i.e., is running.
By the way, I recommend this one from my interpretation of your post:
BOOL ExeExists(char *exe)
{
HANDLE pss = CreateToolhelp32Snapshot(TH32CS_SNAPALL, 0);
PROCESSENTRY32 pe = { 0 };
pe.dwSize = sizeof(pe);
if (Process32First(pss, &pe))
{
do
{
if (strstr(pe.szExeFile,exe))
{
CloseHandle(pss);
return TRUE;
}
}
while(Process32Next(pss, &pe));
}
CloseHandle(pss);
return FALSE;
}
2) by checking to see if the PID exists
BOOL PidExists(int pid)
{
HANDLE pss = CreateToolhelp32Snapshot(TH32CS_SNAPALL, 0);
PROCESSENTRY32 pe = { 0 };
pe.dwSize = sizeof(pe);
if (Process32First(pss, &pe))
{
do
{
if (pe.th32ProcessID == pid)
{
CloseHandle(pss);
return TRUE;
}
}
while(Process32Next(pss, &pe));
}
CloseHandle(pss);
return FALSE;
}
By the way this is used to get the process ID (it is defined in winbase.h)
of the application making the call.
int GetProcessIdApp(void)
{
return GetProcessId(GetCurrentProcess());//defined in WinBase.h
}
Inside WinBase.h
WINBASEAPI
DWORD
WINAPI
GetProcessId(
__in HANDLE Process
);
In my scenario, An application broadcasts its PID at start up, such that
my monitoring program (the Windows service) can read it, then use it to make an ongoing determination of the application's status. If the app is discovered to be dead, and if other criteria indicate it should still be running, my service will start it back up.