I'm learning DirectX12 and writing some utility classes to encapsulate functionality. Right now I'm working on mechanism for pooling CommandLists.
The pool assumes all command lists are closed. I wanted to validate that during inserting to the pool, but I can't manage to check it. From MSDN:
Returns S_OK if successful; otherwise, returns one of the following
values:
E_FAIL if the command list has already been closed, or an invalid API was called during command list recording.
Which is precisely what I'm looking for, but when I call ID3D12GraphicsCommandList::Close() to validate, it throws exception in KernelBase.dll. It looks really bizarre to me. Is this specification incompliance?
//EDIT: I cannot catch the exception, even with catch(...). It tells me maybe something may be wrong with my setup, but everything else is working for me.
Related
I recently completed making an asynchronous version for all the functions in a pure C API, wrapped with N-API to work with JS/TS as a nodejs addon.
The last problem I had to fix was making sure that C POSIX-style errors (ie, returned integer codes) were transferred correctly to the JS at the end of a worker's execution (with the corresponding string, for which we have both an enum of exceptions, and a list of error messages).
When thrown with napi_throw_error (as I did for the synchronous version of all our calls), within the napi_async_complete_callback, these exceptions were never caught at the JS level (I suppose it was because it was within a different async context; I saw online people having a similar problem with ajax). Instead, I opted to just construct my errors as napi_value types, and return these via napi_reject_deferred. This seemed to have the desired effect, of being caught properly when doing a try { await My_NapiWrapper_XYZ() } catch (ex) { ... }.
So I don't really have a problem to fix, but I AM intrigued. These napi_throw_error thrown errors do probably go somewhere. Though I have no idea where. Where should one look to catch an error thrown with napi_throw_error from a napi_async_complete_callback ? Can you give a code example ?
No, they don't go anywhere. It is a bug that I just opened with them:
https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/41377
There is a general problem with handling exceptions in asynchronous callbacks. Normally, they cannot be catched and should lead to program termination but Node's developers have decided to try to keep it running when they can.
I have some tests that depend on a certain thing being true (access to the internet, as it happens, but that isn't important and I don't want to discuss the details of the condition).
I can very easily write a static helper method which will test the (parameterless) condition and call Assert.Inconclusive("Explanatory Message") if it's true/false. And then call that at the start of each Test which has this requirement.
But I'd like to do this as an Attribute, if possible.
How, in detail, do I achieve that, in NUnit?
What I've tried so far:
There's an IApplyToTest interface, exposed by NUnit, which I can make my Attribute implement, and will allow me to hook into the TestRunner, but I can't get it to do what I want :(
That interface gives me access to an NUnit.Framework.Internal.Test object.
If I call:
test.RunState = RunState.NotRunnable;
then I get something equivalent to Assert.Fail("").
Similarly RunState.Skipped or RunState.Ignored give me the equivalent of Assert.Ignore("").
But none of these are setting a message on the Test, and there's no test.Message = "foo"; or equivalent (that I can see).
There's a test.MakeInvalid("Foo") which does set a message, but that's equivalent to Assert.Fail("Foo").
I found something that looked promising:
var result = test.MakeTestResult();
result.SetResult(ResultState.Inconclusive, "Custom Message text");
But that doesn't seem to do anything; the Test just Passes :( I looked for a test.SetAsCurrentResult(result) method in case I need to "attach" that result object back to the test? But nothing doing.
It feels like this is supposed to be possible, but I can't quite figure out how to make it all play together.
If anyone can even show me how to get to Skipped + Custom Message displayed, then I'd probably take that!
If you really want your test to be Inconclusive, then that's what Assume.That is there for. Use it just as you would use Assert.That and the specified constraint fails, your test result will be inconclusive.
That would be the simplest answer to your question.
However, reading the things you have tried, I don't think you actually want Inconclusive at least not as it is defined by NUnit.
In NUnit, Inconclusive means that the test doesn't count because it couldn't be run. The result basically disappears and the test run is successful.
You seem to be saying that you want to receive some notice that the condition failed. That makes sense in the situation where (for example) the internet was not available so your test run isn't definitive.
NUnit provides Assert.Ignore and Warn.If (also Warn.Unless) for those situations. Or you can set the corresponding result states in your custom attribute.
Regarding implementation... The RunState of a test applies to it's status before anyone has even tried to execute it. So, for example, the RunState may be Ignored if someone has used the IgnoreAttribute or it may be NotRunnable if it requires arguments and none are provided. There is no Inconclusive run sttate because that would mean the test is written to be inconclusive all the time, which makes no ssense. The IApplyToTest interface allows an attribute to change the status of a test at the point of discovery, before it is even run, so you would not want to use that.
After NUnit has attempted to run a test, it gets a ResultState, which might be Inconclusive. You can affect this in the code of the test but not currently through an attribute. What you want here is something that checks the conditions needed to run the test immediately before running it and skips execution if the conditions are not met. That attribute would need to be one that generates a command in the chain of commands that execute a test. It would probably need to implement ICommandWrapper to do that, which is a bit more complicated than IApplyToTest because the attribute code must generate a command instance that will work properly with NUnit itself and with other commands in the chain.
If I had this situation, I believe I would use a Run parameter to indicate whether the internet should be available. Then, the tests could
Assume.That(InternetIsNotNeeded());
silently ignoring those tests or fail as expected when the internet should be available.
I've inherited a lotus notes application and one of the things that really irks me is every function/sub/property has onerror statements and errorhandler labels that aside from typos all do the exact same thing. Additionally, and unfortunately this application has gone through several revisions and some errorhandler: labels have revisions where as other don't. I'd like to standardize and centralize this behavior.
Is there a way to have a single error handler for a given document, where if an error is raised anywhere in the document, that particular error handler is called?
Thank you,
You can have one error handler per script execution. You cannot have one global to a document. Each event that fires in a document results in a new script execution.
That said, it is generally advantageous to have one error handler per function, but that advantage is lost if they are actually exactly the same. The better practice is to customize them so that each error handler records the name of the current function. (Of course, due to copy/paste laziness, this is frequently more effective in theory than in practice.)
If you have an On Error Goto SomeLabel statement (where SomeLabel is whatever label the code actually uses), the label must exist in the same Sub/Function that contains that statement so, technically, you need a separate handler for each Sub/Function.
However, some things might simplify matters...
If one Sub/Function calls another Sub/Function, and the inner one doesn't have an error handler but the outer one (the caller) does, then an error in the inner Sub/Function will be caught by the handler in the caller.
This setup gives you less information (you can't get the line number on which the error occurred in the inner Sub/Function), but it might be helpful if you have any Subs/Functions that you're sure either can't produce an error, or only have one line on which an error could occur.
If you have some static message-text or logging which is identical in many error handlers, you could have a Sub/Function in the Form Globals (or in a script library to absolutely minimise code duplication) that contains the static parts of the error handlers, and takes arguments for the variable parts (error message, line number, and Sub/Function name).
Finally, this code will produce the name of the current Sub/Function and makes it easier to use the same error handler in many places, as long as the code declarations contain %include "lsconst.lss" or you use a script library containing the same %include statement:
GetThreadInfo(LSI_THREAD_PROC)
Another function, LSI_Info, can also give you the name of the current Sub/Function, but isn't supported by IBM, and should be avoided.
I want to show more beautiful error message to my users.
For example if someone types integer i= the error message no viable alternative at input '<EOF>' appears. That's totally fine and predictable due to my grammar rules but I'm figuring out ways to improve those messages. If the = is missing in the example above the message changes to mismatched input '<EOF>' expecting '='. Again predictable but I can do more stuff on things like this in my code than on a general input error.
Should I catch them in the code and try to evaluate which cases is meant? Or is there a better way to handle this?
Typically you'd create your own error listener and add it to the parser where you can deal with the error yourself. For that remove any existing error listeners (one for the console is automatically registered by default), by calling parser.removeErrorListeners();. Define an own error listener class derived from BaseErrorListener and add an instance of that to your parser via parser.addErrorListener(yourListener);. You can see an example of such a custom error listener in the ANTLR runtime (search for XPathLexerErrorListener). Override the syntaxError method and use the provided info to generate your own error message. There is already a message passed in to this method (in addition to other stuff like line + char position, exception etc.), which you cannot customize as it comes directly from generated code. So best is probably to leave that alone and start from scratch (the passed in exception is your best option you have).
See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/312629/EN-US/
I am using reponse.direct in my app as well and I am not getting the exception. The workaround that the knowledge base article suggests (Server.Execute) does not work for me. I am getting lots of javascript exceptions from the Ajax Toolkit on the target page if I use Server.Execute, and I did not dig into the cause.
My question - what arguments do you see against just swallowing the exception as a 'known limitation' and moving on?
My reason for using Server.Transfer in this one very specific case is that I want to mask the (real) target url of the page that is actually executing. It works pretty well, except for this exception (that the user never sees).
Make sure you are not calling Server.Transfer() within an exception handler (try..catch/finally).
Edit:
Server.Transfer always raises ThreadAbortException upon completion. If you wrap it in an exception handler you should trap for explicit exception types instead of just 'Exception'.
See the help for Server.Transfer on MSDN. Here is info about ThreadAbortException