Search Results

Search found 56 results on 3 pages for 'filer'.

Page 3/3 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 

  • Rails: Getting rid of generic "X is invalid" validation errors

    - by DJTripleThreat
    I have a sign-up form that has nested associations/attributes whatever you want to call them. My Hierarchy is this: class User < ActiveRecord::Base acts_as_authentic belongs_to :user_role, :polymorphic => true end class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :user, :as => :user_role, :dependent => :destroy accepts_nested_attributes_for :user, :allow_destroy => true validates_associated :user end class Employee < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :user, :as => :user_role, :dependent => :destroy accepts_nested_attributes_for :user, :allow_destroy => true validates_associated :user end I have some validation stuff in these classes as well. My problem is that if I try to create and Customer (or Employee etc) with a blank form I get all of the validation errors I should get plus some Generic ones like "User is invalid" and "Customer is invalid" If I iterate through the errors I get something like: user.login can't be blank User is invalid customer.whatever is blah blah blah...etc customer.some_other_error etc etc Since there is at least one invalid field in the nested User model, an extra "X is invalid" message is added to the list of errors. This gets confusing to my client and so I'm wondering if there is a quick way to do this instead of having to filer through the errors myself.

    Read the article

  • Reproducible file corruption for files on windows share

    - by bbuser
    We have about 40 file servers in our intranet to distribute software packages. The servers have names like example01, example02 etc. Every name resolves to a single IP-address (A-record) and the IP resolves back to that name (PTR) for every single server. The thing is, that for a certain file (mypackage.cab) I get different results depending on whether I use: \\192.0.2.01\fs\pkg\X12345678 or \\example01.foo\fs\pkg\X12345678 While in one case the file is correct in the other case the file has exactly the right size, but it is all zeros. For a certain combination of client and server I can reproduce this reliably. It doesn´t matter if I download in Windows Explorer, via robocopy or even from Linux with smbclient. It´s always the same, one file corrupt, the other ok. It happens only for certain combinations of clients and servers, not others. For example: client01 example01.foo -> OK (192.0.2.01 is also OK) client01 example02.foo -> broken (but 192.0.2.02 is OK) client02 example01.foo -> broken (but 192.0.2.01 is OK) client02 example02.foo -> OK (192.0.2.02 is also OK) client03 example06.foo -> OK (but 192.0.2.06 is broken) client03 example07.foo -> OK (192.0.2.07 is also OK) etc... In some cases I get the broken file when I use the IP address in other cases when I use the name. For every client the majority of servers is Ok, but from every client I tested I have at least 4 cases of broken files. All this happens only for mypackage.cab (about 5k in size), it never happened for any of the other files in the same directory. Confused? Certainly I am. Any idea what can cause this or any idea what to try to figure it out is welcome. Clients are Windows XP. Servers are NetApp filers I don´t have access to. I can (and will) contact the filer team again, but first I have to have an idea what is going on.

    Read the article

  • Reproducible file corruption for files on windows share

    - by bbuser
    We have about 40 file servers in our intranet to distribute software packages. The servers have names like example01, example02 etc. Every name resolves to a single IP-address (A-record) and the IP resolves back to that name (PTR) for every single server. The thing is, that for a certain file (mypackage.cab) I get different results depending on whether I use: \\192.0.2.01\fs\pkg\X12345678 or \\example01.foo\fs\pkg\X12345678 While in one case the file is correct in the other case the file has exactly the right size, but it is all zeros. For a certain combination of client and server I can reproduce this reliably. It doesn´t matter if I download in Windows Explorer, via robocopy or even from Linux with smbclient. It´s always the same, one file corrupt, the other ok. It happens only for certain combinations of clients and servers, not others. For example: client01 example01.foo -> OK (192.0.2.01 is also OK) client01 example02.foo -> broken (but 192.0.2.02 is OK) client02 example01.foo -> broken (but 192.0.2.01 is OK) client02 example02.foo -> OK (192.0.2.02 is also OK) client03 example06.foo -> OK (but 192.0.2.06 is broken) client03 example07.foo -> OK (192.0.2.07 is also OK) etc... In some cases I get the broken file when I use the IP address in other cases when I use the name. For every client the majority of servers is Ok, but from every client I tested I have at least 4 cases of broken files. All this happens only for mypackage.cab (about 5k in size), it never happened for any of the other files in the same directory. Confused? Certainly I am. Any idea what can cause this or any idea what to try to figure it out is welcome. Clients are Windows XP. Servers are NetApp filers I don´t have access to. I can (and will) contact the filer team again, but first I have to have an idea what is going on.

    Read the article

  • XBRL US Conference Highlights

    - by john.orourke(at)oracle.com
    Back in early November I had an opportunity to attend the XBRL US National Conference in Philadelphia.  At the event, XBRL US announced that Oracle had joined the initiative, so I had a chance to participate in a press conference and attend a number of sessions.  Oracle joined XBRL US so we can stay ahead of the standard and leverage it in our products, and to help drive awareness with customers and improve adoption of XBRL. There were roughly 250 attendees at the event, about half of which were vendors and consultants and the rest financial reporting staff from corporate filers.  Event sponsors included Ernst & Young, SWIFT and Fujitsu.  There were also a number of XBRL technology and service providers exhibiting at the conference.  On Monday Nov. 8th, the XBRL US Steering Committee meetings and Annual Members meeting and reception were held.  At the Annual Members meeting the big news was that current XBRL US President, Mark Bolgiano, is moving to a new position at Howard Hughes Medical Center.  Campbell Pryde, who had led the Taxonomy Development for XBRL US, is taking over as XBRL US President. Other items that were highlighted at the members meeting included: The US GAAP XBRL taxonomy is being used by over 1500 SEC filers and has now been handed over to the FASB to maintain and enhance 16 filer training events were held in 2010 XBRL Global Magazine was launched Corporate Actions proposal was submitted to the SEC with SWIFT in May XBRL Labs for iPhone, XBRL US Consistency Suite launched ISO 2022 Corporate Actions Alignment with XBRL achieved The XBRL Credit Rating taxonomy was accepted Tuesday Nov. 9th included Keynotes, General Sessions, Innovation Workshop for Governments and Securities Professionals, and an Opening Reception.  General sessions included: Lessons Learned from the SEC's rollout of XBRL.  More than 18,000 errors were identified in reviews of filings between June 2009 and September 2010.  Most of these related to negative values being used where they shouldn't have.  Also, the SEC feels there are too many taxonomy extensions being created - mostly in the Cash Flow Statements.  They emphasize using existing elements in the US GAAP taxonomy and advise filers not to  create extensions to improve the visual formatting of XBRL filings. Investors and XBRL - Setting the Standard for Data Quality.  In this panel discussion, the key learning was that CFA's, academics and the financial community are not using XBRL as expected.  The issues raised include the  accuracy and completeness of filings, number of taxonomy extensions, and limited number of tools available to help analyze XBRL data.  Another big issue that was raised is the lack of historic results in XBRL - most analysts need 10 quarters of historic data.  On the positive side, XBRL has the potential to eliminate re-keying of data and errors here and can improve analytic capabilities for financial analysts once more historic data is available and more companies are providing detailed tagging of their filings. A US Roadmap for XBRL Financial Reporting.  This was a panel discussion featuring Jeff Neumann(SEC), Campbell Pryde(XBRL US), and Louis Matherne(FASB).  Key points included the fact that XBRL is currently used by 1500 companies, with 8000 more companies coming in 2011.  XBRL for Mutual Fund Reporting will start in 2011 for 8000 funds, and a Credit Rating Taxonomy has now been submitted for review.  The XBRL tagging/filing process is improving each quarter - more education is helping here.  The FASB is looking at extensions to date, and potential additions to US GAAP taxonomy, while the SEC is evaluating filings for accuracy, consistency in tagging, and tools for analyzing data.  The big news is that the FASB 2011 US GAAP Taxonomy has been completed and reviewed by SEC.  The 2011 US GAAP Taxonomy supports new FASB accounting standards issued since 2009, has new taxonomy elements for certain industries (i.e airlines) and the elimination of 500 concepts.  (meaning they can't be used going forward but are still supported for historical comparison)  The 2011 US GAAP Taxonomy will be available for usage with Q2 2011 SEC filings.  More information about this can be found on the FASB web site.  http://www.fasb.org/home Accounting Firms and XBRL.  This session covered the Role of Audit Firms, which includes awareness and education, validation of XBRL filings, and in-house transition planning.  The main advice provided was that organizations should document XBRL mapping process, perform peer comparisons, and risk assessments on a regular basis. Wednesday Nov. 10th included more Keynotes, General Sessions on Corporate Actions, and XBRL Essentials Workshop Training for corporate filers.  The XBRL Essentials Training included: Getting Started Once you Have the Basics Detailed Footnote Tagging and Handling Tables Quality Control and Trust in the XBRL Process Bringing XBRL In-House:  What are the Options, What should you consider? The US GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy - Overview of the 2011 release The XBRL Essentials Training was well-attended with about 80 people.  This included a good overview of the SEC's XBRL mandate, limited liability issue, tagging levels, recommended planning process, internal vs. outsourced approach, and how to manage service providers.  I learned a lot from the session on detailed tagging.  This is the requirement that kicks in during a company's second year of XBRL filing with the SEC and applies to financial statements, footnotes and disclosures (it does not apply to MD&A, executive communications and other information).  The review of the Linkbase model, or dimensional table structure, was very interesting and can be complex to understand.  The key takeaway here is that using dimensional tables in XBRL filings can help limit the number of taxonomy extensions that are required.  The slides from this session are posted on the XBRL US web site. (http://xbrl.us/events/Pages/archive.aspx) For me, the main summary points and takeaways from the XBRL US conference are: XBRL for financial reporting has turned the corner and gone mainstream - with 1500 companies currently using it and 8000 more coming in 2011 The expected value is not being achieved by filers or consumers of XBRL data - this will improve when more companies are filing in XBRL, more history is available, and more software tools are available for analysis (hmm, sounds like an opportunity for Oracle) XBRL is becoming the global standard for all business communications beyond just the financials - i.e. adoption for mutual funds, corporate actions and others planned for the future If you would like to learn more about XBRL and the various training programs, services and software tools that are available check out the XBRL US web site and even better - become a member.  Here's a link:  http://xbrl.us/Pages/default.aspx

    Read the article

  • BizTalk: Internals: the Partner Direct Ports and the Orchestration Chains

    - by Leonid Ganeline
    Partner Direct Port is one of the BizTalk hidden gems. It opens simple ways to the several messaging patterns. This article based on the Kevin Lam’s blog article. The article is pretty detailed but it still leaves several unclear pieces. So I have created a sample and will show how it works from different perspectives. Requirements We should create an orchestration chain where the messages should be routed from the first stage to the second stage. The messages should not be modified. All messages has the same message type. Common artifacts Source code can be downloaded here. It is interesting but all orchestrations use only one port type. It is possible because all ports are one-way ports and use only one operation. I have added a B orchestration. It helps to test the sample, showing all test messages in channel. The Receive shape Filter is empty. A Receive Port (R_Shema1Direct) is a plain Direct Port. As you can see, a subscription expression of this direct port has only one part, the MessageType for our test schema: A Filer is empty but, as you know, a link from the Receive shape to the Port creates this MessageType expression. I use only one Physical Receive File port to send a message to all processes. Each orchestration outputs a Trace.WriteLine(“<Orchestration Name>”). Forward Binding This sample has three orchestrations: A_1, A_21 and A_22. A_1 is a sender, A_21 and A_22 are receivers. Here is a subscription of the A_1 orchestration: It has two parts A MessageType. The same was for the B orchestration. A ReceivePortID. There was no such parameter for the B orchestration. It was created because I have bound the orchestration port with Physical Receive File port. This binding means the PortID parameter is added to the subscription. How to set up the ports? All ports involved in the message exchange should be the same port type. It forces us to use the same operation and the same message type for the bound ports. This step as absolutely contra-intuitive. We have to choose a Partner Orchestration parameter for the sending orchestration, A_1. The first strange thing is it is not a partner orchestration we have to choose but an orchestration port. But the most strange thing is we have to choose exactly this orchestration and exactly this port.It is not a port from the partner, receive orchestrations, A_21 or A_22, but it is A_1 orchestration and S_SentFromA_1 port. Now we have to choose a Partner Orchestration parameter for the received orchestrations, A_21 and A_22. Nothing strange is here except a parameter name. We choose the port of the sender, A_1 orchestration and S_SentFromA_1 port. As you can see the Partner Orchestration parameter for the sender and receiver orchestrations is the same. Testing I dropped a test file in a file folder. There we go: A dropped file was received by B and by A_1 A_1 sent a message forward. A message was received by B, A_21, A_22 Let’s look at a context of a message sent by A_1 on the second step: A MessageType part. It is quite expected. A PartnerService, a ParnerPort, an Operation. All those parameters were set up in the Partner Orchestration parameter on both bound ports.     Now let’s see a subscription of the A_21 and A_22 orchestrations. Now it makes sense. That’s why we have chosen such a strange value for the Partner Orchestration parameter of the sending orchestration. Inverse Binding This sample has three orchestrations: A_11, A_12 and A_2. A_11 and A_12 are senders, A_2 is receiver. How to set up the ports? All ports involved in the message exchange should be the same port type. It forces us to use the same operation and the same message type for the bound ports. This step as absolutely contra-intuitive. We have to choose a Partner Orchestration parameter for a receiving orchestration, A_2. The first strange thing is it is not a partner orchestration we have to choose but an orchestration port. But the most strange thing is we have to choose exactly this orchestration and exactly this port.It is not a port from the partner, sent orchestrations, A_11 or A_12, but it is A_2 orchestration and R_SentToA_2 port. Now we have to choose a Partner Orchestration parameter for the sending orchestrations, A_11 and A_12. Nothing strange is here except a parameter name. We choose the port of the sender, A_2 orchestration and R_SentToA_2 port. Testing I dropped a test file in a file folder. There we go: A dropped file was received by B, A_11 and by A_12 A_11 and A_12 sent two messages forward. The messages were received by B, A_2 Let’s see what was a context of a message sent by A_1 on the second step: A MessageType part. It is quite expected. A PartnerService, a ParnerPort, an Operation. All those parameters were set up in the Partner Orchestration parameter on both bound ports. Here is a subscription of the A_2 orchestration. Models I had a hard time trying to explain the Partner Direct Ports in simple terms. I have finished with this model: Forward Binding Receivers know a Sender. Sender doesn’t know Receivers. Publishers know a Subscriber. Subscriber doesn’t know Publishers. 1 –> 1 1 –> M Inverse Binding Senders know a Receiver. Receiver doesn’t know Senders. Subscribers know a Publisher. Publisher doesn’t know Subscribers. 1 –> 1 M –> 1 Notes   Orchestration chain It’s worth to note, the Partner Direct Port Binding creates a chain opened from one side and closed from another. The Forward Binding: A new Receiver can be added at run-time. The Sender can not be changed without design-time changes in Receivers. The Inverse Binding: A new Sender can be added at run-time. The Receiver can not be changed without design-time changes in Senders.

    Read the article

  • What version-control system is most trivial to set up and use for toy projects?

    - by Norman Ramsey
    I teach the third required intro course in a CS department. One of my homework assignments asks students to speed up code they have written for a previous assignment. Factor-of-ten speedups are routine; factors of 100 or 1000 are not unheard of. (For a factor of 1000 speedup you have to have made rookie mistakes with malloc().) Programs are improved by a sequence is small changes. I ask students to record and describe each change and the resulting improvement. While you're improving a program it is also possible to break it. Wouldn't it be nice to back out? You can see where I'm going with this: my students would benefit enormously from version control. But there are some caveats: Our computing environment is locked down. Anything that depends on a central repository is suspect. Our students are incredibly overloaded. Not just classes but jobs, sports, music, you name it. For them to use a new tool it has to be incredibly easy and have obvious benefits. Our students do most work in pairs. Getting bits back and forth between accounts is problematic. Could this problem also be solved by distributed version control? Complexity is the enemy. I know setting up a CVS repository is too baffling---I myself still have trouble because I only do it once a year. I'm told SVN is even harder. Here are my comments on existing systems: I think central version control (CVS or SVN) is ruled out because our students don't have the administrative privileges needed to make a repository that they can share with one other student. (We are stuck with Unix file permissions.) Also, setup on CVS or SVN is too hard. darcs is way easy to set up, but it's not obvious how you share things. darcs send (to send patches by email) seems promising but it's not clear how to set it up. The introductory documentation for git is not for beginners. Like CVS setup, it's something I myself have trouble with. I'm soliciting suggestions for what source-control to use with beginning students. I suspect we can find resources to put a thin veneer over an existing system and to simplify existing documentation. We probably don't have resources to write new documentation. So, what's really easy to setup, commit, revert, and share changes with a partner but does not have to be easy to merge or to work at scale? A key constraint is that programming pairs have to be able to share work with each other and only each other, and pairs change every week. Our infrastructure is Linux, Solaris, and Windows with a netapp filer. I doubt my IT staff wants to create a Unix group for each pair of students. Is there an easier solution I've overlooked? (Thanks for the accepted answer, which beats the others on account of its excellent reference to Git Magic as well as the helpful comments.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3