severe incompatibility when some entry statements are in blockdata | Uniface 10 Enterprise Edition | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

—  Results per page  —








— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
For a group of consecutive words like 'end of support' use Match phrase

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
severe incompatibility when some entry statements are in blockdata
12 Apr 2018
2:10 pm
Avatar
ulrich-merkel
Frankfurt/Germany
Member
Forum Posts: 1808
Member Since:
01 Oct 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

See the following example code in LPMX U9 and U10:
(this is a real usecase since 2008)

entry lp_FORMINIT
; this is not defined:
call lp_LoadFunction

; so in the compile we get under u9
; Phase 7: Procs compilation
; warning: 1000 – Module ‘LP_LOADFUNCTION’ not found.

; in U10, we got a strange
; Phase 7: Procs compilation
; warning: 1000 – Module ‘LP_FORMINIT’ not found.
end ; lp_FORMINIT

entry use_blockdata
$1 = $block_text
block_text:blockdata ~

entry component_docu
params
string p_docu : OUT
endparams
p_docu = “D:component-%%$componentname%%%/<xxxx_datstatus>/<xxxx_autor>/<xxxx_kurzinfo>”
end ; component_docu

entry lp_FORMINIT
call lp_LoadFunction
call lp_LoadFile
call lp_InitLists
end ; lp_FORMINIT
~

 

in the EXEC trigger, we call lp_FORMINIT as

operation exec
call LP_FORMINIT
edit

16 Apr 2018
11:18 am
Avatar
Henk van der Veer
Member
Forum Posts: 54
Member Since:
01 Oct 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hello Uli,

Thanks for sending us a reproduction set (offline). We were able to replicate the problem you reported.

I don’t want to sound too bureaucratic, but for the purpose of traceability, stating the business case and setting the required priority, I recommend you open a support call through the normal support channel. 

Kind regards,

Henk

12 Jun 2018
4:29 pm
Avatar
ulrich-merkel
Frankfurt/Germany
Member
Forum Posts: 1808
Member Since:
01 Oct 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I just run my testsets against patch F219 and it looks like the U10 behaviour is the same as it was in U9.

Forum Timezone: Europe/Amsterdam

Most Users Ever Online: 131

Currently Online:
25 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

ulrich-merkel: 1808

Iain Sharp: 659

Theo Neeskens: 362

gianni: 318

istiller: 275

rogerw: 266

Knut: 218

lalitpct: 197

Arjen van Vliet: 180

sochaz: 173

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 3

Members: 9271

Moderators: 0

Admins: 8

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 62

Topics: 2246

Posts: 9703

Newest Members:

Artycor, GenaDax, ClaytonLak, Reginaaroms, PornosexSl, Vikarew, benyb2, MarvinSaire, Michaelsen, Gotovimprofile

Administrators: admin: 23, Adrian Gosbell: 318, diseli: 1001, Bob Maier: 3, Nico Peereboom: 77, Michael Rabone: 4, richiet: 406, JanCees: 34