|
Your code snippet is not complete. You forgot e.g. systemSFDCStartHour and systemSFDCStartMilliSecond. Also code for non-American locales is missing. You can add several hundred lines more of useless code before that return true statement, there is a lot of space for future optimizations!
|
|
|
|
|
The original plan was to finish the method while poll isn't active. It just never happened since...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is (V).
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, no redundant code in there, nope, none. Nothing to see here, move along...:TunelessWhistleSmiley:
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would do this. It's not awful or subtly wrong, just kind of deranged. 
DocumentInformation ldocInfo = new DocumentInformation();
ldocInfo.DocumentID = Convert.ToInt32(agmTemplateId);
if (ldocInfo.DocumentID != 0)
{
section.Items.Add(PageHelpers.CreateSidebarItem("AGM plan", "/GetFile.aspx?DocumentId=" + ldocInfo.DocumentID, true, "cmdAGMTemplate", false));
}
ldocInfo.DocumentID = Convert.ToInt32(proposalTemplateId);
if (ldocInfo.DocumentID != 0)
{
section.Items.Add(PageHelpers.CreateSidebarItem("Proposal", "/GetFile.aspx?DocumentId=" + ldocInfo.DocumentID, true, "cmdProposal", false));
}
|
|
|
|
|
What does the DocumentInformation class/struct look like?
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
It's just a data object with about 10 other properties. None of the getters or setters have any hidden side effects. My guess is that they thought they were going to have to use the object to do some kind of data lookup, but didn't switch it to an integer when they didn't have to.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the author thought, that for some reason the variable name (DocumentID) must be the same as in the command string he assigns it to. Why someone would think that is beyond me.
The good thing about pessimism is, that you are always either right or pleasently surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
I am using this message in one of my applications for things that should never happen (but you never know what may happen with Windows), but I guard against anyways.
I also include a 'Guru Meditation GUID' so I can find where the issue happened and try and debug it.
An example issue: I put a service in a service manager (that uses Unity IoC Container) and get it out a few lines later. If the service is, for some strange reason, not there, I show a message and terminate the application, as something major went haywire.
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
...haven't done it since college but I prefer:
Program faw down go "Boom!"
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly if it's going to "faw down", it should "go Boom!"; so many kids nowadays don't think it should "go Boom!". 
|
|
|
|
|
I saw that in a Metro App on a friend's computer.  I guess the developer agreed with the Fischer Price comparison.
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
I got "Catastrophic Failure" right from MS: a VB6 app I made years (if not decades) ago, which tries to access a MS Access DB. There was a field with junck in it, making that message..
The same message occured in Access itself, so I believe it's an Access error message.
The signature is in building process.. Please wait...
|
|
|
|
|
What about : Welcome to Application suicide booth. Option 5 has been chosen : The user the is too dumb to close the app properly and that's why the application crashed.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
|
I could use that in some old legacy software. It takes a while to shut down. Despite being told to wait, there are users who will use the task manager to force it to turn off immediately. This causes it to stop in the middle of saving settings to an Access DB which often corrupts the DB. So when the user restarts the program it isn’t happy about having a corrupted DB.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
just hide the window and let the user think it has shut down.
<h>
I'm Brazilian; English and other human languages in general aren't my best skills so I apologise for my less than perfect English...
"Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
"'Sophisticated platform' typically means 'I have no idea how it works.'"</h>
|
|
|
|
|
We mostly leave the window there so the users won't try to restart it while it is still shutting down. And, yes, they would do this. It really needs a better status report so users don't think it has frozen, but it is old software with no more updates planned.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: I also include a 'Guru Meditation GUID'
Let me guess. you used to program Amigas years ago, right? 
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
try
{
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw new Exception(e.Message);
}
This is from an online tutorial I recently came across (thankfully not in CP). Apparently if something goes wrong, one can get ALL the information one needs from the exception message. Why bother with stacktrace etc...
... or that's what the author thought, anyway.
Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων!
(Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)
|
|
|
|
|
"An error has occurred, see the inner exception for details."
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
"Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
"'Sophisticated platform' typically means 'I have no idea how it works.'"
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah my point exactly. I'd done that same mistake myself, and thankfully it never got past the testing phase: I got that exact error message, and there was no inner exception to see , so after a bit of digging, I simply changed my
throw new Exception(ex.Message);
to
throw;
(Of course, I had an error logging call just before that, otherwise the entire catch block wouldn't make much sense...)
I was just very (unpleasantly) surprised to come across such a basic coding mistake in an online tutorial.
Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων!
(Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: //do stuff that may fail
Well there's the real problem. Why would you purposely write code that may fail. Write it to not fail. Duh!
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree -- and not as a joke. In general code should not fail*.
* -- in case you see my code fail: it was by design.
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing on your serious note: the code per se, should not fail, I agree. But the final program may fail at times. Say you have a web request in there, and any of the following occurs:
(a) the remote server times out (e.g. the server is offline)
(b) the remote server has a bug, returning a 500 error
(c) the remote server cannot find the requested resource, returning a 404 error
(d) the remote server forbids access to the requested resource, returning a 403 error
Any of the above results in the web request throwing an exception in YOUR application, but your code is not to blame. So there is a chance that a bug-free program CAN fail. That's why you should have error handling and meaningful error reporting.
Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων!
(Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
