Im very new to Tm1 and have to implement a new function in my code.
Is there any way to undo your last action?
For better understanding ill write an example:
I have 8 different cubes and i will upload one after one.
If one cube is not able to be uploaded all the others shouldnt be uploaded too.
Every cube which is already being uploaded should get a reset to the previous state.
Is there a way to implement it?
You have to inbriquate your 8 loading process in a master (others are slaves). If you have a condition that make one or your cube unuploadable you use the ProcessError function. In the master process, you fetch the result of the execution of each slave process. If one is in error, you use the processerror function (in the master). All the chain won't be commited.
The answer above from Wuzardor provides an approach using TI processes but your question seems to suggest you're using TM1py/Python to do the upload to TM1, either directly, or by triggering TI processes through the REST API.
In general, there's no easy way to roll back changes to cube data. However, it should be simple enough to structure your Python code such that the existence and validity of all the load files is established before you push anything to any of your cubes. It's difficult to suggest the best approach without more details about what you're trying to achieve and how.
Updated in response to OP comment:
OK, while it's not clear what IT isn't cooperating with, but if you are unable to verify the source prior to extracting it, you can always load it first to a staging cube, where the data can be checked, before copying anything to your main cubes. Depending on what issues you tend to face with the data, you might be able to automate this check or might need to rely on a human looking at it. Either way, just don´t overwrite your historic data until you've checked the new data.
Furthermore, you might want to think about your overall design. Might it make sense to retain a copy of the previous data in the cubes anyway? Why not build your cubes such that you can keep the history, rather than re-overwriting each time? Finding a sensible design really depends on the details of your application but you might benefit from looking at it with fresh eyes.
Cheers
Alex
We have an NSTextView and some data saved about its contents in a core data Managed object context. Everything works great while the managed object context stays in memory. However when we save it, we get very weird fetch request behaviors.
For example, we run a fetch request that asks for all elements with a textLocation less than or equal to 15. The first object in the array we get back has a textLocation of 16.
I know I can't get a definitive answer here, as the code is fairly complex. But does anyone know what this issue smells of?
My thought is that we are somehow not getting the proper MOC synced with the NSTextView after saving? What could change that breaks this?
Thanks.
For example, we run a fetch request
that asks for all elements with a
textLocation less than or equal to 15.
The first object in the array we get
back has a textLocation of 16.
Really, the only way to get that is to (in reverse order of likelihood):
Mess up ethe definition of the attribute such that you think your are saving one type of numerical info but that you are actually saving another.
You've mangled the predicate so that it actually looks for values of 16 or greater. (You can test predicates against an array of dictionaries whose keys have the same names as you Core Data entities.)
It's an error in the conversion between a number and a string for purposes of displaying in the UI or logging.
I would start with (3) myself because it seems more common and until you confirm you don't have a display problem, you can't diagnose the other problems.
I finally managed to work out what was going on. I was setting textLocation using the setPrimitiveValue... just because I didn't want notifications to fire off. Turns out that's a really bad idea, because Core Data didn't know the value had changed. It still thought the value was 15 instead of 16.
Let this be a lesson: never bypass KVO unless you're INSIDE the managed object and you know what you're doing!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Scenario
You've got several bug reports all showing the same problem. They're all cryptic with similar tales of how the problem occurred. You follow the steps but it doesn't reliably reproduce the problem. After some investigation and web searching, you suspect what might be going on and you are pretty sure you can fix it.
Problem
Unfortunately, without a reliable way to reproduce the original problem, you can't verify that it actually fixes the issue rather than having no effect at all or exacerbating and masking the real problem. You could just not fix it until it becomes reproducible every time, but it's a big bug and not fixing it would cause your users a lot of other problems.
Question
How do you go about verifying your change?
I think this is a very familiar scenario to anyone who has engineered software, so I'm sure there are a plethora of approaches and best practices to tackling bugs like this. We are currently looking at one of these problems on our project where I have spent some time determining the issue but have been unable to confirm my suspicions. A colleague is soak-testing my fix in the hopes that "a day of running without a crash" equates to "it's fixed". However, I'd prefer a more reliable approach and I figured there's a wealth of experience here on SO.
Bugs that are hard to reproduce are the hardest one to solve. What you need to make sure that you have found the root of the problem, even if the problem itself cannot be reproduced successfully.
The most common intermittent bugs are caused by race-conditions - by eliminating the race, or ensuring that one side always wins you have eliminated the root of the problem even if you can't successfully confirm it by testing the results. The only thing you can test is that the cause does need repeat itself.
Sometimes fixing what is seen as the root indeed solves a problem but not the right one - there is no avoiding it. The best way to avoid intermittent bugs is be careful and methodical with the system design and architecture.
You'll never be able to verify the fix without identifying the root cause and coming up with a reliable way to reproduce the bug.
For identifying the root cause: If your platform allows it, hook some post-mortem debugging into the problem.
For example, on Windows, get your code to create a minidump file (core dump on Unix) when it encounters this problem. You can then get the customer (or WinQual, on Windows) to send you this file. This should give you more information about how your code's gone wrong on the production system.
But without that, you'll still need to come up with a reliable way to reproduce the bug. Otherwise you'll never be able to verify that it's fixed.
Even with all of this information, you might end up fixing a bug that looks like, but isn't, the one that the customer is seeing.
Instrument the build with more extensive (possibly optional) logging and data saving that allows exact reproduction of the variable UI steps the users took before the crash occurred.
If that data does not reliably allow you to reproduce the issue then you've narrowed the class of bug. Time to look at sources of random behaviour, such as variations in system configuration, pointer comparisons, uninitialized data, etc.
Sometimes you "know" (or rather feel) that you can fix the issue without extensive testing or unit testing scaffolding, because you truly understand the issue. However, if you don't, it very often boils down to something like "we ran it 100 times and the error no longer occurred, so we'll consider it fixed until the next time it's reported.".
I use what i call "heavy style defensive programming" : add asserts in all the modules that seems linked by the problem. What i mean is, add A LOT of asserts, asserts evidences, assert state of objects in all their memebers, assert "environnement" state, etc.
Asserts help you identify the code that is NOT linked to the problem.
Most of the time i find the origin of the problem just by writing the assertions as it forces you to reread all the code and plundge under the guts of the application to understand it.
There is no one answer to this problem. Sometimes the solution you've found helps you figure out the scenario to reproduce the problem, in which case you can test that scenario before and after the fix. Sometimes, though, that solution you've found only fixes one of the problems but not all of them, or like you say masks a deeper problem. I wish I could say "do this, it works every time", but there isn't a "this" that fits that scenario.
You say in a comment that you think it is a race condition. If you think you know what "feature" of the code is generating the condition, you can write a test to try to force it.
Here is some risky code in c:
const int NITER = 1000;
int thread_unsafe_count = 0;
int thread_unsafe_tracker = 0;
void* thread_unsafe_plus(void *a){
int i, local;
thread_unsafe_tracker++;
for (i=0; i<NITER; i++){
local = thread_unsafe_count;
local++;
thread_unsafe_count+=local;
};
}
void* thread_unsafe_minus(void *a){
int i, local;
thread_unsafe_tracker--;
for (i=0; i<NITER; i++){
local = thread_unsafe_count;
local--;
thread_unsafe_count+=local;
};
}
which I can test (in a pthreads enironment) with:
pthread_t th1, th2;
pthread_create(&th1,NULL,&thread_unsafe_plus,NULL);
pthread_create(&th2,NULL,&thread_unsafe_minus,NULL);
pthread_join(th1,NULL);
pthread_join(th2,NULL);
if (thread_unsafe_count != 0) {
printf("Ah ha!\n");
}
In real life, you'll probably have to wrap your suspect code in some way to help the race hit more ofter.
If it works, adjust the number of threads and other parameters to make it hit most of the time, and now you have a chance.
First you need to get stack traces from your clients, that way you can actually do some forensics.
Next do fuzz tests with random input, and keep these tests running for long stretches, they're great at finding those irrational border cases, that human programmers and testers can find through use cases and understanding of the code.
In this situation, where nothing else works, I introduce additional logging.
I also add in email notifications that show me the state of the application when it breaks down.
Sometimes I add in performance counters... I put that data in a table and look at trends.
Even if nothing shows up, you are narrowing things down. One way or another, you will end up with useful theories.
These are horrible and almost always resistant to the 'fixes' the engineer thinks he is putting in, as they have a habit of coming back to bite months later. Be wary of any fixes made to intermittent bugs. Be prepared for a bit of grunt work and intensive logging as this sounds more of a testing problem than a development problem.
My own problem when overcoming bugs like these was that I was often too close to the problem, not standing back and looking at the bigger picture. Try and get someone else to look at how you approach the problem.
Specifically my bug was to do with the setting of timeouts and various other magic numbers that in retrospect where borderline and so worked almost all of the time. The trick in my own case was to do a lot of experimentation with settings that I could find out which values would 'break' the software.
Do the failures happen during specific time periods? If so, where and when? Is it only certain people that seem to reproduce the bug? What set of inputs seem to invite the problem? What part of the application does it fail on? Does the bug seem more or less intermittent out in the field?
When I was a software tester my main tools where a pen and paper to record notes of my previous actions - remember a lot of seemingly insignificant details is vital. By observing and collecting little bits of data all the time the bug will appear to become less intermittent.
For a difficult-to-reproduce error, the first step is usually documentation. In the area of the code that is failing, modify the code to be hyper-explicit: One command per line; heavy, differentiated exception handling; verbose, even prolix debug output. That way, even if you can't reproduce or fix the error, you can gain far more information about the cause the next time the failure is seen.
The second step is usually assertion of assumptions and bounds checking. Everything you think you know about the code in question, write .Asserts and checks. Specifically, check objects for nullity and (if your language is dynamic) existence.
Third, check your unit test coverage. Do your unit tests actually cover every fork in execution? If you don't have unit tests, this is probably a good place to start.
The problem with unreproducible errors is that they're only unreproducible to the developer. If your end users insist on reproducing them, it's a valuable tool to leverage the crash in the field.
I've run into bugs on systems that seem to consistently cause errors, but when stepping through the code in a debugger the problem mysteriously disappears. In all of these cases the issue was one of timing.
When the system was running normally there was some sort of conflict for resources or taking the next step before the last one finished. When I stepped through it in the debugger, things were moving slowly enough that the problem disappeared.
Once I figured out it was a timing issue it was easy to find a fix. I'm not sure if this is applicable in your situation, but whenever bugs disappear in the debugger timing issues are my first suspects.
Once you fully understand the bug (and that's a big "once"), you should be able to reproduce it at will. When the reproduction code (automated test) is written, you fix the bug.
How to get to the point where you understand the bug?
Instrument the code (log like crazy). Work with your QA - they are good at re-creating the problem, and you need to arrange to have full dev toolkit available to you on their machines. Use automated tools for uninitialized memory/resources. Just plain stare at the code. No easy solution there.
Those types of bugs are very frustrating. Extrapolate it out to different machines with different types of custom hardware that might be in them (like at my company), and boy oh boy does it become a nightmare. I currently have several bugs like this at the moment at my job.
My rule of thumb: I don't fix it unless I can reproduce it myself or I'm presented with a log that clearly shows something wrong. Otherwise I cannot verify my change, nor can I verify that my change has not broken anything else. Of course, it's just a rule of thumb - I do make exceptions.
I think you're quite right to be concerned with your colleuge's approach.
These problems have always been caused by:
Memory Problems
Threading Problems
To solve the problem, you should:
Instrument your code (Add log statements)
Code Review threading
Code Review memory allocation / dereferencing
The code reviews will most likely only happen if it is a priority, or if you have a strong suspicion about which code is shared by the multiple bug reports. If it's a threading issue, then check your thread safety - make sure variables accessable by both threads are protected. If it's a memory issue, then check your allocations and dereferences and especially be suspicious of code that allocates and returns memory, or code that uses memory allocation by someone else who may be releasing it.
Some questions you could ask yourself:
When did this piece of code last work without problem.
What has been done since it stopped working.
If the code has never worked the approach would be different naturally.
At least when many users change a lot of code all the time this is a very common scenario.
Specific scenario
While I don't want to concentrate on only the issue I am having, here are some details of the current issue we face and how I've tackled it so far.
The issue occurs when the user interacts with the user interface (a TabControl to be exact) at a particular phase of a process. It doesn't always occur and I believe this is because the window of time for the problem to be exhibited is small. My suspicion is that the initialization of a UserControl (we're in .NET, using C#) coincides with a state change event from another area of the application, which leads to a font being disposed. Meanwhile, another control (a Label) tries to draw its string with that font, and hence the crash.
However, actually confirming what leads to the font being disposed has proved difficult. The current fix has been to clone the font so that the drawing label still has a valid font, but this really masks the root problem which is the font being disposed in the first place. Obviously, I'd like to track down the full sequence, but that is proving very difficult and time is short.
Approach
My approach was first to look at the stack trace from our crash reports and examine the Microsoft code using Reflector. Unfortunately, this led to a GDI+ call with little documentation, which only returns a number for the error - .NET turns this into a pretty useless message indicating something is invalid. Great.
From there, I went to look at what call in our code leads to this problem. The stack starts with a message loop, not in our code, but I found a call to Update() in the general area under suspicion and, using instrumentation (traces, etc), we were able to confirm to about 75% certainty that this was the source of the paint message. However, it wasn't the source of the bug - asking the label to paint is no crime.
From there, I looked at each aspect of the paint call that was crashing (DrawString) to see what could be invalid and started to rule each one out until it fell on the disposable items. I then determined which ones we had control over and the font was the only one. So, I took a look at how we handled the font and under what circumstances we disposed it to identify any potential root causes. I was able to come up with a plausible sequence of events that fit the reports from users, and therefore able to code a low risk fix.
Of course, it crossed my mind that the bug was in the framework, but I like to assume we screwed up before passing the blame to Microsoft.
Conclusion
So, that's how I approached one particular example of this kind of problem. As you can see, it's less than ideal, but fits with what many have said.
Unless there are major time constraints, I don't start testing changes until I can reliably reproduce the problem.
If you really had to, I suppose you could write a test case that appears to sometimes trigger the problem, and add it to your automated test suite (you do have an automated test suite, right?), and then make your change and hope that test case never fails again, knowing that if you didn't really fix anything at least you now have more chance of catching it. But by the time you can write a test case, you almost always have things reduced down to the point where you're no longer dealing with such an (apparently) non-deterministic situation.
Simply: ask the user who reported it.
I just use one of the reporters as a verification system.
Usually the person who was willing to report a bug is more than happy to help you to solve her problem [1].
Just give her your version with a possible fix and ask if the problem is gone.
In cases where the bug is a regression, the same method can be used to bisect where the problem occurred by giving the user with the problem multiple versions to test.
In other cases the user can also help you to debug the problem by giving her a version with more debugging capabilities.
This will limit any negative effects from a possible fix to that person instead of guessing that something will fix the bug and then later on realising that you've just released a "bug fix" that has no effect or in worst case a negative effect for the system stability.
You can also limit the possible negative effects of the "bug fix" by giving the new version to a limited number of users (for example to all of the ones that reported the problem) and releasing the fix only after that.
Also ones she can confirm that the fix you've made works, it is easy to add tests that ensures that your fix will stay in the code (at least on unit test level, if the bug is hard to reproduce on more higher system level).
Of course this requires that whatever you are working on supports this kind of approach. But if it doesn't I would really do whatever I can to enable it - end users are more satisfied and many of the hardest tech problems just go away and priorities come clear when development can directly interact with the system end users.
[1] If you have ever reported a bug, you most likely know that many times the response from the development/maintenance team is somehow negative from the end users point of view or there will be no response at all - especially in situations where the bug can not be reproduced by the development team.