Search Results

Search found 5658 results on 227 pages for 'eric fail'.

Page 70/227 | < Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >

• How to protect Google Ads from yontoo layers runtime?

  - by Dharmavir

  Since sometime I have observed that Google Ads on any website including my blog (http://blogs.digitss.com) gets replaced with something similar to uploaded image below. I am sure it's happening with many people and that could reduce google adsense income. After some research I found that it is because "yontoo layers runtime" from http://www.yontoo.com/ (tagline says: Platform that allows you to control the websites you visit everyday.) but actually they are taking over. I am not sure with which software they are making a way into users computer but that seems very bad in terms of freedom of Internet and advt/marketing industry. I don't remember I have ever said "yes" to install yontoo on my computer. This piece of software is successful to install itself on my laptop/desktop and workstation at office. I am going to disable it now but the question is how do I make my websites aware of Yontoo Runtime and stop them from replacing Google Ads? Basically they are not able to replace all adsense ads but so far they are successfully replaced 1st instance of adsense advt and I am sure in future they will hit more. There could be 2 approaches 1) Fool yontoo runtime by putting some misleading divs in html document to save actual ads, 2) Completely disable yontoo by working out some client side script (javascript) which can fail/crash yontoo runtime and so will fail it's purpose of replacing ads. You can visit my blog (http://blogs.digitss.com) and see on top-right corner, if you find that google ad replaced with something similar to image attached with question - it means your computer/browser is infected too. Looking forward to reply from webmasters, if someone has already wrote some code/plugin to make website (and google ads) safe from yontoo or similar runtime. FYI: it was able to push this runtime in all browsers installed on machine. So a dangerous threat. And yes, I am just using Google ads - not sure if yontoo runtime is doing trick against other ad networks or not? I am sure they must be doing it with some handful of ad networks.

  Read the article

• What is the way to submit a patch to fix all the damage that LP: #600941 causes?

  - by nutznboltz

  What is the best way to submit a patch to fix all the damage that LP: #600941 causes? I ask because LP: #600941 was put into every version of Ubuntu still supported at this time. Should I pick a particular version and run ubuntu-bug on it? Should that version be the LTS or Oneiric or Precise (how can I get Precise if I need it?) The story is that after it was pushed out all of our systems started experiencing Nagios nrpe restart failures. Commands like /etc/init.d/nagios-nrpe-server restart would cause nrpe to stop but not restart. I tracked this down to the way that the /etc/init.d/nagios-nrpe-server script is calling start-stop-daemon. The issue is that the "stop" stanza in the /etc/init.d/nagios-nrpe-server script first calls start-stop-daemon which sends SIGTERM to nrpe and then waits only for one second. If nrpe has not exited by that time the pid file will still exist and the /etc/init.d/nagios-nrpe-server script will remove it. Worse if /etc/init.d/nagios-nrpe-server restart is used not only will the pid file be removed, the attempt to restart nrpe will fail provided that the nrpe daemon is still tardy in shutting down. The attempt to start under those circumstances will fail because nrpe will still be bound to a socket and the second attempt at binding will cause the nrpe startup to abort. They should have wondered why there was a comment about "sometimes the pid file does not get removed". They should have tested on systems that have a heavy load and therefore slow nrpe response times. The fix is to add --retry 10 or such to the invocation of start-stop-daemon ... --stop ... Thanks

  Read the article

• ubuntu apache2 start, stop, status, restart and reload commands fails

  - by Assil

  Hi, I am new to Ubuntu and I'm still trying to figure this OS out (for work it's brilliant, better than Windows). Before I wrote this question, I did my research via Google, this website and even in StackOverflow.com. Whatever error came up, I googled it but with no success on how to solve this. Back to the main point: I tried to install (lamp) apache2 with this guide (in German) and this one(in english). Then I got stuck at the start command (with which one is able to start the apache2 server), my first try to run the server was a success until i wrote sudo /etc/init.d/apache2 reload then it showed me an error: $ sudo /etc/init.d/apache2 reload * Starting web server apache2 Syntax error on line 1 of /etc/apache2/ports.conf: Invalid command 'oder', perhaps misspelled or defined by a module not included in the server configuration Action 'reload' failed. The Apache error log may have more information. [fail] I didn't even write the word "oder" so I closed the shell and opened it anew. It showed the same error. After that, I've done some research and found out that my file (index.html (which is in my /var/www folder)), which I access via the browser, when I type in http://localhost should show up and tell that it was a success. So I removed apache2 and installed it again but now the following errors appear: $ sudo /etc/init.d/apache2 start * Starting web server apache2 Syntax error on line 1 of /etc/apache2/ports.conf: Invalid command 'oder', perhaps misspelled or defined by a module not included in the server configuration Action 'start' failed. The Apache error log may have more information. [fail] And still, I didn't even write "oder" in the command. I appreciate every help I can get, further thanks and have a nice day.

  Read the article

• Getting a lot of postmaster undeliverable notices for non-existent users

  - by Mike Walsh

  I've had my domain (straightpathsql.com) for a few years now. I host my e-mail with Google Accounts for business and have for awhile. ALl of the sudden in the past week I am starting to get a lot of postmaster delivery fail notices from various domains, most of them involving bogus e-mail addresses at my domain ([email protected], for example)... My assumption here is that someone is trying to relay on some other host (not my hosts which are secure through google apps for business, I presume) and there isn't much I can do to stop it. But I just want to make sure there isn't something else I need to be looking at here.. An example delivery fail notice is below.. I know nothing of those addresses below and they look like garbage... (Quick edit: the reason I get these messages is I set myself up as a catch all, so it doesn't matter what e-mail you send a note to at my domain, I'll get it if the account isn't setup... All of the failure messages are sent to bogus addresses on my domain) The following message to <[email protected]> was undeliverable. The reason for the problem: 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 553-'sorry, this recipient is in my badrecipientto list (#5.7.1)' Final-Recipient: rfc822;[email protected] Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure) Remote-MTA: dns; [118.82.83.11] Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 553-'sorry, this recipient is in my badrecipientto list (#5.7.1)' (delivery attempts: 0) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Howard Blankenship <[email protected]> To: omiivi2922 <[email protected]> Cc: Date: Subject: Hi omiivi2922

  Read the article

• At which point is a continuous integration server interesting?

  - by Cedric Martin

  I've been reading a bit about CI servers like Jenkins and I'm wondering: at which point is it useful? Because surely for a tiny project where you'd have only 5 classes and 10 unit tests, there's no real need. Here we've got about 1500 unit tests and they pass (on old Core 2 Duo workstations) in about 90 seconds (because they're really testing "units" and hence are very fast). The rule we have is that we cannot commit code when a test fail. So each developers launches all his tests to prevent regression. Obviously, because all the developers always launch all the test we catch errors due to conflicting changes as soon as one developer pulls the change of another (when any). It's still not very clear to me: should I set up a CI server like Jenkins? What would it bring? Is it just useful for the speed gain? (not an issue in our case) Is it useful because old builds can be recreated? (but we can do this to with Mercurial, by checking out old revs) Basically I understand it can be useful but I fail to see exactly why. Any explanation taking into account the points I raised above would be most welcome.

  Read the article

• Cannot restart Ubuntu after replacing Unity with Gnome and purging lightdm

  - by OtagoHarbour

  I am running Ubuntu 11.10. I used the directions here to replace Unity with Gnome. It seemed to work fine until the end of step 2 when I rebooted the computer. When I chose the default option, I just got a black screen. When I choose the restore option and then "Restore normal boot" I get Starting load fallback graphics devices [fail] Starting GNOME Display Manager [ok] Starting Userspace bootsplash [ok] Stopping GNOME Display Manager [ok] Stopping Userspace bootsplash [ok] Starting web server apach22 [fail] (among a lot of OKs) It finally gets to Stopping System V runlevel compatibility [ok] where it hangs. I left it overnight and just had a blank screen when I checked it in the morning. I can "Drop to root shell prompt" and "Drop to root shell prompt with networking". I did see here that one should be able to fix the problem by choosing remount and then doing apt-get install lightdm I tried this as root shell with and without networking and got the message Err http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ oneric-updates/main lightdm i386 1.0.6-0ubuntu1.7 Could not resolve 'us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu' What is the best way to resolve this problem? Thanks, Peter.

  Read the article

• Too many heap subpools might break the upgrade

  - by Mike Dietrich

  Recently one of our new upcoming Oracle Database 11.2 reference customers did upgrade their production database - a huge EBS system - from Oracle 9.2.0.8 to Oracle Database 11.2.0.2. They've tested very well, we've optimized the upgrade process, the recompilation timings etc.  But once the live upgrade was done it did fail in the JAVA component piece with this error: begin if initjvmaux.startstep('CREATE_JAVA_SYSTEM') then * ORA-29553: classw in use: SYS.javax/mail/folder ORA-06512: at "SYS.INITJVMAUX", line 23 ORA-06512: at line 5 Support diagnosis was pretty quick - and refered to:Bug 10165223 - ORA-29553: class in use: sys.javax/mail/folder during database upgrade But how could this happen? Actually I don't know as we have used the same init.ora setup on test and production. The only difference: the prod system has more CPUs and RAM. Anyway, the bug names as workarounds to either decrease the SGA to less than 1GB or decrease the number of heap subpools to 1. Finally this query did help to diagnose the number of heap subpools: select count(distinct kghluidx) num_subpools from x$kghlu where kghlushrpool = 1; The result was 2 - so we did run the upgrade now with this parameter set: _kghdsidx_count=1 And finally it did work well. One sad thing:After the upgrade did fail Support did recommend to restore the whole database - which took an additional 3-4 hours. As the ORACLE SERVER component has been already upgraded successfully at the stage where the error did happen it would have been fine to go on with the manual upgrade and start catupgrd.sql script. It would have been detected that the ORACLE SERVER is upgraded already and just picked up the non-upgraded components. The good news:Finally I had one extra slide to add to our workshop presentation

  Read the article

• How to avoid throwing vexing exceptions?

  - by Mike

  Reading Eric Lippert's article on exceptions was definitely an eye opener on how I should approach exceptions, both as the producer and as the consumer. However, I'm still struggling to define a guideline regarding how to avoid throwing vexing exceptions. Specifically: Suppose you have a Save method that can fail because a) Somebody else modified the record before you, or b) The value you're trying to create already exists. These conditions are to be expected and not exceptional, so instead of throwing an exception you decide to create a Try version of your method, TrySave, which returns a boolean indicating if the save succeeded. But if it fails, how will the consumer know what was the problem? Or would it be best to return an enum indicating the result, kind of Ok/RecordAlreadyModified/ValueAlreadyExists? With integer.TryParse this problem doesn't exist, since there's only one reason the method can fail. Is the previous example really a vexing situation? Or would throwing an exception in this case be the preferred way? I know that's how it's done in most libraries and frameworks, including the Entity framework. How do you decide when to create a Try version of your method vs. providing some way to test beforehand if the method will work or not? I'm currently following these guidelines: If there is the chance of a race condition, then create a Try version. This prevents the need for the consumer to catch an exogenous exception. For example, in the Save method described before. If the method to test the condition pretty much would do all that the original method does, then create a Try version. For example, integer.TryParse(). In any other case, create a method to test the condition.

  Read the article

• Big level objects collision system for 2d game

  - by Aristarhys

  I read many variants today and get some knowledge in general, so here is a steps of mine thoughts in pictures (horrible paint.net ones). We need to develop grid system, so we check only thing near, perform simple check to cut out deep check, and at - last deep check like per-pixel collision check. Step 1 - Let p1, p2 are some sprites lets first just check with circle collision - because large distance between p1, p2 this fails and of course so we don't need test more deeply. But if we have not 2, but 20 objects, why we need to even circle test something so far outside of our view. Step 2 - Add basic column system, now we don't bother with p2 if it's in a column far from p1 column, so we even don't do circle test. But p3 is in the same col, so let do circle test, which of course will fail. Step 3 - Lets improve column system to the grid system with grid cell size just like p1, p2, p3 collision boxes, so we cut out things much top or below p1. And this is all great until comes BIG OBJs which is some kind of platforms. They are much bigger then grid cell. Circle test for will be successful, but deep check for whole big obj will fail And that the part I can't get. How do I store the grid position of big object? Like 4 grid coords for big object vertexes? And if one of them close to p1 do circle check for centre of big object then a deep one if succeed? Am I do it wrong? My possible solution:

  Read the article

• What is the value to checking in broken unit tests?

  - by Adam W.

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in broken unit tests? I will use a simple example. Case sensitivity. The current code is Case Sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests has found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

  - by Adam W.

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• Error: kernel headers not found. (But they are in place)

  - by Guandalino

  I'm trying to install the Guest Additions in VirtualBox 4.04. Host OS is Ubuntu desktop 11.04 64bit, guest OS is Ubuntu server 11.10 64bit. $ sudo ./VBoxLinuxAdditions.run After some output this line is printed: The headers for the current running kernel were not found. But the headers are installed, at least accordingly to dpkg: $ dpkg --get-selections | grep linux-headers linux-headers-3.0.0-12 install linux-headers-3.0.0-12-server install linux-headers-server install The running kernel is: $ uname -a Linux foobar 3.0.0-12-server #20-Ubuntu SMP Fri Oct 7 16:36:30 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 X86_64 GNU/Linux How do I fix things so that Guest Additions installer is able to find kernel headers? Update: added full output. The headers for the current running kernel were not found. If the module compilation fails then this could be the reason. Building the main Guest Additions module ...done. Building the shared folder support module ...fail! (Look at /var/log/vboxadd-install.log to find out what went wrong) Installing the Window System drivers ...fails! (Could not find the X.Org or XFree86 Window System). I don't care for fail #2, because that's a server and I don't need X server. But I need shared folder support. Some further detail: $ tail /val/log/vboxadd-install.log .......... cc1: some warnings being treated as errors make[2]: *** [/tmp/vbox.0/vfsmod.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [_module_/tmp/vbox.0] Error 2 make: *** [vboxsf] Error 2

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 LTX Install Problems (See post for system build details.)

  - by Lokitez

  This is my first ever attempt at working with Ubuntu. I have only ever installed Windows in the past and that may be the problem. I purchased all new hardware this week and I would really like to give Ubuntu a chance (especially since I don't want to buy another Windows license). First, the hardware: AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Gaming Motherboard SAMSUNG 830 Series MZ-7PC128D/AM 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) - This is my intended boot drive. Western Digital VelociRaptor WD5000HHTZ 500GB 10000 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive - This is a backup drive that I have installed Windows Vista on until I can get Ubuntu to work. G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) ASUS HD7850-DC2-2GD5 Radeon HD 7850 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 I have downloaded and tried to install both Ubuntu 64 bit and Kubuntu 64 bit (both 12.04). Both will always fail to copy a file during install or otherwise lockup during install to the SSD. I have burned two copies of the Ubuntu 12.04 and had the install fail with both. I have installed Vista onto the HDD. Is it possible to mount the Ubuntu file into

  Read the article

• how to fully unit test functions and their internal validation

  - by Patrick

  I am just now getting into formal unit testing and have come across an issue in testing separate internal parts of functions. I have created a base class of data manipulation (i.e.- moving files, chmodding file, etc) and in moveFile() I have multiple levels of validation to pinpoint when a moveFile() fails (i.e.- source file not readable, destination not writeable). I can't seem to figure out how to force a couple particular validations to fail while not tripping the previous validations. Example: I want the copying of a file to fail, but by the time I've gotten to the actual copying, I've checked for everything that can go wrong before copying. Code Snippit: (Bad code on the fifth line...) // if the change permissions is set, change the file permissions if($chmod !== null) { $mod_result = chmod($destination_directory.DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR.$new_filename, $chmod); if($mod_result === false || $source_directory.DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR.$source_filename == '/home/k...../file_chmod_failed.qif') { DataMan::logRawMessage('File permissions update failed on moveFile [ERR0009] - ['.$destination_directory.DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR.$new_filename.' - '.$chmod.']', sfLogger::ALERT); return array('success' => false, 'type' => 'Internal Server Error [ERR0009]'); } } So how do I simulate the copy failing. My stop-gap measure was to perform a validation on the filename being copied and if it's absolute path matched my testing file, force the failure. I know this is very bad to put testing code into the actual code that will be used to run on the production server but I'm not sure how else to do it. Note: I am on PHP 5.2, symfony, using lime_test(). EDIT I am testing the chmodding and ensuring that the array('success' = false, 'type' = ..) is returned

  Read the article

• What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

  - by user20194

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• Algorithms for Data Redundancy and Failover for distributed storage system?

  - by kennetham

  I'm building a distributed storage system that works with different storage sizes. For instance, my storage devices have sizes of 50GB, 70GB, 150GB, 250GB, 1000GB, 5 storage systems in one system. My application will store any files to the storage system. Question: How can I build a distributed storage with the idea of data redundancy and fail-over to store documents, videos, any type of files at the same time ensuring that should one of any storage devices fail, there would be another copy of these files on another storage device. However, the concern is, 50GB of storage can only store this maximum number of files as compared to 70GB, 150GB etc. With one storage in mind, bringing 5 storage systems like a cloud storage, is there any logical way to distribute or store the files through my application? How do I ensure data redundancy through different storage sizes? Is there any algorithm to collate multiple blob files into a single file archive? What is the best solution for one cloud storage with multiple different storage sizes? I open this topic with the objective of discussing the best way to implement this idea, assuming simplicity, what are the issues of this implementation, performance measurements and discussion of the limitations.

  Read the article

• Release Notes for 3/15/2012

  Here are the notes for today’s release: Updated the GNU Lesser General Public License for new projects to match the latest license version Deployed several bug fixes around HTTPS support: Fixed an issue where the advanced view filters in the issue tracker would fail to work under HTTPS. Fixed an issue where voting was not working properly under HTTPS. Fixed an issue where navigating using AJAX would fail under HTTPS. Fixed several other minor scripting errors for various scenarios under HTTPS. Fixed an issue where text in the Discussions List would appear cut off in Safari. Fixed an issue where shortcuts on the Work Items page conflicted with standard Mac shortcuts. Tweaked the design of code snippets in discussion to be consistent with wiki code snippets. Have ideas on how to improve CodePlex? Visit our ideas page! Vote for your favorite ideas or submit a new one. Got Twitter? Follow us and keep apprised of the latest releases and service status at @codeplex.

  Read the article

• Is there a better way to organize my module tests that avoids an explosion of new source files?

  - by luser droog

  I've got a neat (so I thought) way of having each of my modules produce a unit-test executable if compiled with the -DTESTMODULE flag. This flag guards a main() function that can access all static data and functions in the module, without #including a C file. From the README: -- Modules -- The various modules were written and tested separately before being coupled together to achieve the necessary basic functionality. Each module retains its unit-test, its main() function, guarded by #ifdef TESTMODULE. `make test` will compile and execute all the unit tests, producing copious output, but importantly exitting with an appropriate success or failure code, so the `make test` command will fail if any of the tests fail. Module TOC __________ test obj src header structures CONSTANTS ---- --- --- --- -------------------- m m.o m.c m.h mfile mtab TABSZ s s.o s.c s.h stack STACKSEGSZ v v.o v.c v.h saverec_ f.o f.c f.h file ob ob.o ob.c ob.h object ar ar.o ar.c ar.h array st st.o st.c st.h string di di.o di.c di.h dichead dictionary nm nm.o nm.c nm.h name gc gc.o gc.c gc.h garbage collector itp itp.c itp.h context osunix.o osunix.c osunix.h unix-dependent functions It's compile by a tricky bit of makefile, m:m.c ob.h ob.o err.o $(CORE) itp.o $(OP) cc $(CFLAGS) -DTESTMODULE $(LDLIBS) -o $@ $< err.o ob.o s.o ar.o st.o v.o di.o gc.o nm.o itp.o $(OP) f.o where the module is compiled with its own C file plus every other object file except itself. But it's creating difficulties for the kindly programmer who offered to write the Autotools files for me. So the obvious way to make it "less weird" would be to bust-out all the main functions into separate source files. But, but ... Do I gotta?

  Read the article

• SDL blitting multiple surfaces at once

  - by extropic_engine

  I'm trying to write a platforming game where the sprites for the level backgrounds are broken up into 512x512 chunks. I keep 3 chunks in memory at a time and I'm trying to write code to blit all three to the screen. Here is the current code I have: SDL_Rect where; where.y = -game->camera->y; where.x = -game->camera->x - MAP_WIDTH; SDL_BlitSurface(left_chunk, NULL, screen, &where); where.x = -game->camera->x; SDL_BlitSurface(center_chunk, NULL, screen, &where); where.x = -game->camera->x + MAP_WIDTH; SDL_BlitSurface(right_chunk, NULL, screen, &where); The issue I'm running into is that whichever chunk gets blitted first is the only one that shows up. The rest fail to appear onscreen. I think the issue might have something to do with alpha transparency, but even if the chunks don't overlap at all they still fail to blit. In other parts of the code I'm blitting multiple things to the screen at once, such as characters and backgrounds, and they all show up correctly. This particular segment of code is the only area I'm encountering this problem. If I comment out the line that blits left_chunk, it changes to this:

  Read the article

• "Do it right, against customer's wishes" - how is it called?

  - by SF.

  We know the optimal situation of negotiating corrections of specifications with the customer, getting the specs to do what the client wanted, not what they said or thought they wanted. That's negotiating, explaining. Sometimes, we're unable to convince the client. We're forced to produce broken as designed. This, called "demonology" by merit of mages summoning demons and demons fulfilling their wishes very literally, causing the mage's demise as result, is another approach that will leave the customer very dissatisfied once they realize their error, and of course try to pin the blame on the developer. Now I just faced a very different approach: the customer created simple specs that fail to account for some critical caveat, and is completely unwilling to fix them, admit the obvious errors and accept suggested corrections. The product made to these specs will be critically broken, and possibly might cost human lives. Still, it's too late to drop the contract entirely. The contract has punitive clauses for that, ones we can't really accept. The boss' decision? We do the work right and lie to the customer that we did it according to the specs. The algorithms in question are hidden deep enough under the surface, the product will do the work just fine, won't fail in the caveat situation, and unless someone digs too deep, they will never discover we didn't break it as requested. Is there some common name for this tactics of execution of specs?

  Read the article

• Docking CDialogBar Horizontally with CToolbar [migrated]

  - by PSU

  I need to display a CToolbar (m_wndToolBar) and a CDialogBar (m_wndDlgBarSid1) horizontally (i.e. next to each other, not above one another). The parent frame is derived from CMDIFrameWnd. I've tried all sorts of variations to get this to work. While I can properly position the CDialogBar to the right of the CToolbar, I cannot persist the positioning, although the WINDOWPLACEMENT mechanism is working correctly (the registry is written on program exit); whenever the program is run, the CToolbar shows up docked left, and the CDialogBar shows up below it, also docked left. I'm using (perforce) MFC and Visual C++ 6.0. Here's the code, slightly redacted to remove debug printouts and the like: int CMainFrame::OnCreate(LPCREATESTRUCT lpCreateStruct) { if (CMDIFrameWnd::OnCreate(lpCreateStruct) == -1) { return -1; } if (!m_wndToolBar.Create(this) || !m_wndToolBar.LoadToolBar(IDR_MAINFRAME) ) { return -1; // fail to create } if (!m_wndDlgBarSid1.Create(this, IDD_DIALOGBAR_SID1, CBRS_ALIGN_TOP, AFX_IDW_DIALOGBAR)) { return -1; // fail to create } WINDOWPLACEMENT wp ; CString sSection = "DialogBarSettings"; CString sEntry = "Sid1"; if ( ReadWindowPlacement( &wp, sSection, sEntry )) { BOOL bSWP = m_wndDlgBarSid1.SetWindowPlacement( &wp ); RecalcLayout(); } m_wndToolBar.SetBarStyle(m_wndToolBar.GetBarStyle() | CBRS_TOOLTIPS | CBRS_FLYBY | CBRS_SIZE_DYNAMIC); m_wndToolBar.GetToolBarCtrl().ModifyStyle( 0, TBSTYLE_FLAT, 0 ) ; m_wndDlgBarSid1.SetBarStyle(m_wndToolBar.GetBarStyle() | CBRS_SIZE_DYNAMIC | CBRS_TOP | CBRS_GRIPPER | CBRS_TOOLTIPS | CBRS_FLYBY ) ; m_wndToolBar.EnableDocking(CBRS_ALIGN_ANY); EnableDocking(CBRS_ALIGN_ANY); DockControlBar(&m_wndToolBar); m_wndDlgBarSid1.EnableDocking(CBRS_ALIGN_TOP | CBRS_ALIGN_BOTTOM); DockControlBar(&m_wndDlgBarSid1,AFX_IDW_DOCKBAR_TOP); return 0; } Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Weird IIS with Windows Authentication + IE problem

  - by Paulius Maruška

  Hello. I have a website running on IIS and using Windows Authentication. All users that are configured to get access to the site are form a AD domain (not local users). In the properties of a Website, I have set to use the AD domain as the realm. Now, when using Firefox, Safari or Chrome - Everything is fine. When the user tries to open the site, he get's the login box. he enters simply "username" and "password" (let's pretend that it's an actual login and password :P) and he get's into the site. When using IE, however, things get nasty. When the user tries to open the site - he get's the login box. User enters the "username" and "password" again, but those get rejected! And when the second time login box pops up - it has the username filled in as "web-server-domain-name\username" which is wrong, because web-server-domain-name is not the domain where all users reside (it's "ad-domain"). I've spent days trying to figure out what's going on... Note, that if I manually enter "ad-domain\username" - I get accepted into the site without problems. So, my guess is that IE sends wrong username if domain is not specified. Anyway, IE is the only browser that triggers this behavior! Is it possible to do a server-side fix? Maybe it's possible to somehow auto-map the users to AD users? If it's not solvable server-side - is there a client-side fix for this? Thank you. PS: I'm more of a programmer than a sys-admin, so configuring servers isn't the strong side of mine... :P UPDATE: @Evan: Yes, "Digest authentication for Windows domain servers" is also enabled. @Eric: IIS version is 6.0. The authentication methods enabled are: Integrated and digest - all other methods are disabled. As for the security log. I looked at it, when doing "username" and "password" login in Chrome/Firefox and when doing "ad-domain\username" and "password" login from IE - the generated log messages are the same (I see no difference, anyway). When entering "username" and "password" I don't see any errors in the security (or any other) log, so can't tell what method it's trying to use. UPDATE 2: As suggested by Eric in the comments - I played around with Fiddler... While playing with it, I noticed, that when "username" and "password" is entered in FF and IE - the "Authorization" header value (encrypted) sent by IE is longer (almost two times) than one sent by FF. I tried to disable Windows Integrated authentication and only leave the Digest enabled - that fixed the problem (meaning, IE used the right realm just like other browsers), but that caused bazillion other problems with my site, because with Digest - user impersonation on the server doesn't work (that causes problems, when connecting to database etc). Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Weird IIS with Windows Authentication + IE problem

  - by Paulius Maruška

  I have a website running on IIS and using Windows Authentication. All users that are configured to get access to the site are form a AD domain (not local users). In the properties of a Website, I have set to use the AD domain as the realm. Now, when using Firefox, Safari or Chrome - Everything is fine. When the user tries to open the site, he get's the login box. he enters simply "username" and "password" (let's pretend that it's an actual login and password :P) and he get's into the site. When using IE, however, things get nasty. When the user tries to open the site - he get's the login box. User enters the "username" and "password" again, but those get rejected! And when the second time login box pops up - it has the username filled in as "web-server-domain-name\username" which is wrong, because web-server-domain-name is not the domain where all users reside (it's "ad-domain"). I've spent days trying to figure out what's going on... Note, that if I manually enter "ad-domain\username" - I get accepted into the site without problems. So, my guess is that IE sends wrong username if domain is not specified. Anyway, IE is the only browser that triggers this behavior! Is it possible to do a server-side fix? Maybe it's possible to somehow auto-map the users to AD users? If it's not solvable server-side - is there a client-side fix for this? Thank you. PS: I'm more of a programmer than a sys-admin, so configuring servers isn't the strong side of mine... :P UPDATE: @Evan: Yes, "Digest authentication for Windows domain servers" is also enabled. @Eric: IIS version is 6.0. The authentication methods enabled are: Integrated and digest - all other methods are disabled. As for the security log. I looked at it, when doing "username" and "password" login in Chrome/Firefox and when doing "ad-domain\username" and "password" login from IE - the generated log messages are the same (I see no difference, anyway). When entering "username" and "password" I don't see any errors in the security (or any other) log, so can't tell what method it's trying to use. UPDATE 2: As suggested by Eric in the comments - I played around with Fiddler... While playing with it, I noticed, that when "username" and "password" is entered in FF and IE - the "Authorization" header value (encrypted) sent by IE is longer (almost two times) than one sent by FF. I tried to disable Windows Integrated authentication and only leave the Digest enabled - that fixed the problem (meaning, IE used the right realm just like other browsers), but that caused bazillion other problems with my site, because with Digest - user impersonation on the server doesn't work (that causes problems, when connecting to database etc). Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Lessons from a SAN Failure

  - by Bill Graziano

  At 1:10AM Sunday morning the main SAN at one of my clients suffered a “partial” failure.  Partial means that the SAN was still online and functioning but the LUNs attached to our two main SQL Servers “failed”.  Failed means that SQL Server wouldn’t start and the MDF and LDF files mostly showed a zero file size.  But they were online and responding and most other LUNs were available.  I’m not sure how SANs know to fail at 1AM on a Saturday night but they seem to.  From a personal standpoint this worked out poorly: I was out with friends and after more than a few drinks.  From a work standpoint this was about the best time to fail you could imagine.  Everything was running well before Monday morning.  But it was a long, long Sunday.  I started tipsy, got tired and ended up hung over later in the day. Note to self: Try not to go out drinking right before the SAN fails. This caught us at an interesting time.  We’re in the process of migrating to an entirely new set of servers so some things were partially moved.  This made it difficult to follow our procedures as cleanly as we’d like.  The benefit was that we had much better documentation of everything on the server.  I would encourage everyone to really think through the process of implementing your DR plan and document as much as possible.  Following a checklist is much easier than trying to remember at night under pressure in a hurry after a few drinks. I had a series of estimates on how long things would take.  They were accurate for any single server failure.  They weren’t accurate for a SAN failure that took two servers down.  This wasn’t bad but we should have communicated better. Don’t forget how many things are outside the database.  Logins, linked servers, DTS packages (yikes!), jobs, service broker, DTC (especially DTC), database triggers and any objects in the master database are all things you need backed up.  We’d done a decent job on this and didn’t find significant problems here.  That said this still took a lot of time.  There were many annoyances as a result of this.  Small settings like a login’s default database had a big impact on whether an application could run.  This is probably the single biggest area of concern when looking to recreate a server.  I’d encourage everyone to go through every single node of SSMS and look for user created objects or settings outside the database. Script out your logins with the proper SID and already encrypted passwords and keep it updated.  This makes life so much easier.  I used an approach based on KB246133 that worked well.  I’ll get my scripts posted over the next few days. The disaster can cause your DR process to fail in unexpected ways.  We have a job that scripts out all logins and role memberships and writes it to a file.  This runs on the DR server and pulls from the production server.  Upon opening the file I found that the contents were a “server not found” error.  Fortunately we had other copies and didn’t need to try and restore the master database.  This now runs on the production server and pushes the script to the DR site.  Soon we’ll get it pushed to our version control software. One of the biggest challenges is keeping your DR resources up to date.  Any server change (new linked server, new SQL Server Agent job, etc.) means that your DR plan (and scripts) is out of date.  It helps to automate the generation of these resources if possible. Take time now to test your database restore process.  We test ours quarterly.  If you have a large database I’d also encourage you to invest in a compressed backup solution.  Restoring backups was the single larger consumer of time during our recovery. And yes, there’s a database mirroring solution planned in our new architecture. I didn’t have much involvement in things outside SQL Server but this caused many, many things to change in our environment.  Many applications today aren’t just executables or web sites.  They are a combination of those plus network infrastructure, reports, network ports, IP addresses, DTS and SSIS packages, batch systems and many other things.  These all needed a little bit of attention to make sure they were functioning properly. Profiler turned out to be a handy tool.  I started a trace for failed logins and kept that running.  That let me fix a number of problems before people were able to report them.  I also ran traces to capture exceptions.  This helped identify problems with linked servers. Overall the thing that gave me the most problem was linked servers.  In order for a linked server to function properly you need to be pointed to the right server, have the proper login information, have the network routes available and have MSDTC configured properly.  We have a lot of linked servers and this created many failure points.  Some of the older linked servers used IP addresses and not DNS names.  This meant we had to go in and touch all those linked servers when the servers moved.

  Read the article

• An MCM exam, Rob? Really?

  - by Rob Farley

  I took the SQL 2008 MCM Knowledge exam while in Seattle for the PASS Summit ten days ago. I wasn’t planning to do it, but I got persuaded to try. I was meaning to write this post to explain myself before the result came out, but it seems I didn’t get typing quickly enough. Those of you who know me will know I’m a big fan of certification, to a point. I’ve been involved with Microsoft Learning to help create exams. I’ve kept my certifications current since I first took an exam back in 1998, sitting many in beta, across quite a variety of topics. I’ve probably become quite good at them – I know I’ve definitely passed some that I really should’ve failed. I’ve also written that I don’t think exams are worth studying for. (That’s probably not entirely true, but it depends on your motivation. If you’re doing learning, I would encourage you to focus on what you need to know to do your job better. That will help you pass an exam – but the two skills are very different. I can coach someone on how to pass an exam, but that’s a different kind of teaching when compared to coaching someone about how to do a job. For example, the real world includes a lot of “it depends”, where you develop a feel for what the influencing factors might be. In an exam, its better to be able to know some of the “Don’t use this technology if XYZ is true” concepts better.) As for the Microsoft Certified Master certification… I’m not opposed to the idea of having the MCM (or in the future, MCSM) cert. But the barrier to entry feels quite high for me. When it was first introduced, the nearest testing centres to me were in Kuala Lumpur and Manila. Now there’s one in Perth, but that’s still a big effort. I know there are options in the US – such as one about an hour’s drive away from downtown Seattle, but it all just seems too hard. Plus, these exams are more expensive, and all up – I wasn’t sure I wanted to try them, particularly with the fact that I don’t like to study. I used to study for exams. It would drive my wife crazy. I’d have some exam scheduled for some time in the future (like the time I had two booked for two consecutive days at TechEd Australia 2005), and I’d make sure I was ready. Every waking moment would be spent pouring over exam material, and it wasn’t healthy. I got shaken out of that, though, when I ended up taking four exams in those two days in 2005 and passed them all. I also worked out that if I had a Second Shot available, then failing wasn’t a bad thing at all. Even without Second Shot, I’m much more okay about failing. But even just trying an MCM exam is a big effort. I wouldn’t want to fail one of them. Plus there’s the illusion to maintain. People have told me for a long time that I should just take the MCM exams – that I’d pass no problem. I’ve never been so sure. It was almost becoming a pride-point. Perhaps I should fail just to demonstrate that I can fail these things. Anyway – boB Taylor (@sqlboBT) persuaded me to try the SQL 2008 MCM Knowledge exam at the PASS Summit. They set up a testing centre in one of the room there, so it wasn’t out of my way at all. I had to squeeze it in between other commitments, and I certainly didn’t have time to even see what was on the syllabus, let alone study. In fact, I was so exhausted from the week that I fell asleep at least once (just for a moment though) during the actual exam. Perhaps the questions need more jokes, I’m not sure. I knew if I failed, then I might disappoint some people, but that I wouldn’t’ve spent a great deal of effort in trying to pass. On the other hand, if I did pass I’d then be under pressure to investigate the MCM Lab exam, which can be taken remotely (therefore, a much smaller amount of effort to make happen). In some ways, passing could end up just putting a bunch more pressure on me. Oh, and I did.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >