Logos crashes when trying to create a Reading Plan

No problem creating this in 5.1a RC-3 on Mac OS 10.8.4. I can't even efficiently read Mac logs, so I will not even attempt a Windows one.

Hi Jack

Thanks for trying to reproduce this - interesting that it doesn't occur on Mac. 

I wonder if its a Windows-specific issue or if there is something wrong with my setup

Graham

I get the same crash in Windows 7!

I get the same crash in Windows 7!

thanks Dave

looks like a Wndows-specific bug then.

It also crashed with an existing plan on the OT as I was typing a new range  Ge - Mal | Mt - R

I wonder if the Mac guys tried your range?

I wonder if the Mac guys tried your range?

Yes I did.

Jack

It's not the same - use | instead of commas

I DID get a crash on Mac while trying to help in the other thread... But I restarted Logos and it didn't crash for a couple more tries. 

It's not the same - use | instead of commas

Using | instead of comma, L5 Mac crashed twice. But if commas work, why use |?

I DID get a crash on Mac while trying to help in the other thread... But I restarted Logos and it didn't crash for a couple more tries. 

Restarting Logos did not help. She crashed again. You Windows guys are so clever at finding ways to crash [8-|]

Gotta run. My Bride wants to go to Chang's for lunch. Sorry Bama

Using | instead of comma, L5 Mac crashed twice

Thanks Jack

So it's a generic L5 bug not OS specific.

But if commas work, why use |?

They do different things.

"Matt, Mark" creates a reading plan which reads through Matthew and then Mark

"Matt | Mark" creates a reading plan which takes you through both Matthew and Mark each day

"Matt | Mark" creates a reading plan which takes you through both Matthew and Mark each day

Is that working for you? It isn't on Mac... at least not for me.

Is that working for you? It isn't on Mac... at least not for me.

I don't know - it crashes when I try and create the plan[:)]

I am replicating this and have opened a case.

I am replicating this and have opened a case.

Why wasn't this crash considered important enough for RC4?

But if commas work, why use |?

They do different things.

"Matt, Mark" creates a reading plan which reads through Matthew and then Mark

"Matt | Mark" creates a reading plan which takes you through both Matthew and Mark each day

Bit late to the party here, but thanks for the information.

But if commas work, why use |?

They do different things.

"Matt, Mark" creates a reading plan which reads through Matthew and then Mark

"Matt | Mark" creates a reading plan which takes you through both Matthew and Mark each day

Bit late to the party here, but thanks for the information.

No problem.

I am replicating this and have opened a case.

Why wasn't this crash considered important enough for RC4?

Agreed - this really needs to be addressed.

Graham

I am replicating this and have opened a case.

Why wasn't this crash considered important enough for RC4?

Agreed - this really needs to be addressed.

Graham

but in a Release Candidate 4? In another thread Rosie chided Logos for solving a bug in RC, since those are considered stable versions.

Fixing a bug that wasn't newly introduced in RC3 or a regression in this version risks breaking the build and should probably only occur for very serious issues. Logos sometimes seems to treat this a bit flexible in order to put in bugfixes in that are a bit longer on the backburner (and hopefully thoroughly tested etc). A new case for something that obscure - which needs to be analyzed for the cause of the crash, found out regarding the circumstances that make it happen, then it needs new coding to prevent the crash but not inducing some side-effects down the road and a lot of testing to ensure this really is the case.... you get the idea - shouldn't risk breaking the stable version.

As much as we all want to see bugs fixed fast: those who use Logos for sermon preparation and for their seminary coursework etc. need to rely on a stable version. Trying to fix a bug by shooting from the hip at this stage of the development process endagers these people.

HI Mick

Very fair and valid points.

Fixing a bug that wasn't newly introduced in RC3 or a regression in this version

It's this aspect I can't quantify.

I know I have used this feature in the past but not for some time so I don't know when the fault was introduced.

I guess I assumed it was in 5.1a but, on reflection, I really don't know!

It would be nice if someone using the stable version of 5.1 could test and see whether it works correctly there.

Graham 

It would be nice if someone using the stable version of 5.1 could test and see whether it works correctly there.

5.1a went live, so that might be difficult to find.

5.1a went live, so that might be difficult to find.

That is a fair point[:$]

I was unable to reproduce this issue in 5.1 SR-3 on Windows or Mac, so it seems to have been introduced in 5.1a.

Hi Dylan

I was unable to reproduce this issue in 5.1 SR-3 on Windows or Mac, so it seems to have been introduced in 5.1a.

Thanks for checking - and good to see you on the forums[Y]

Graham

Fixing a bug that wasn't newly introduced in RC3 or a regression in this version risks breaking the build and should probably only occur for very serious issues.

My point is that it's a repeatable crash for anyone trying to build a plan or use a plan with that sort of range. It turns out (as I also just verified) that it is a regression in 5.1a. Now, who knows what bugs were introduced with the new compiler?!!

This fix should have been included in the last RC; I apologise for its omission. We'll be releasing an update (including this fix and a couple of others).

This fix should have been included in the last RC; I apologise for its omission. We'll be releasing an update (including this fix and a couple of others).

Thanks Bradley

Appreciated, Graham

This is fixed in 5.1a SR-1.

Thanks Logos