Bugs still existing in V5.2.11

I see that the PEEK/POKE bug when using the simulation mode as reported by Svejk and the keywork colours for the math functions MIN and MAX as reported by myself have not been rectified in V5.2.11

Nor does simulation yet allow full representation of 40 pin chips for correct simulation of port C as I have mentioned several times here in the past.

It would be good if Rev Ed naintained a forum viewable log indicating they were arare of bugs as reported and the status of each such as whether they where definitiely fixed for a frthcoming version.

At the moment it is a wait, and then test.

Please Rev Ed can something be actioned in the form of a pending/done list

Thanks Westaust55 for checking, saves me downloading it .

Another [minor] trouble that I have with upgrading is that the header file gets replaced with the original sample thus deleting my own header which contains my usual variable names, constants, structure etc. Anyway is minor as I've learnt [the hard way] to save a copy somewere safe.

All issues are noted and are worked upon in level of importance. As has clearly already been stated in the .11 release thread the main purpose of this release was to correct an error introduced in .10 on flowchart simulation.
It is not a major upgrade and so will not include other fixes not yet applied.

Testing a release is extremely time consuming and it is quicker, as in this case, to test the release if only one major file has changed - the only file updated in this case is progedit.exe and so functions of other files (keywords etc) will not be changed in this release.

westaust55 said:

Nor does simulation yet allow full representation of 40 pin chips for correct simulation of port C as I have mentioned several times here in the past.

Click to expand...

This is not a bug. There has historically never been any separate simulation of 40X/40X1 chips as ths internal simulator engine does not in any way distinguish between 28X1/40X1 - they use exactly the same compiler/simulator and are therefore regarded the same by the programming editor. It is on the list of 'user requests', but at present it is a very low priority as it would be a lot of work compared to the relatively small number of 40X1 chips sold - 40X2's are far more popular.

However the X2 simulator engine is internally completely different and had this new feature added at design (as it is much more recent), so it will already distinguish and simulate a 40 pin chip - simply add a
#picaxe 40x2
directive so the simulator knows you are using a 40 pin chip (it assumes 28 by default).
You will then see a 40 pin layout (portD included) instead of a 28 pin layout in the simulator window.

westaust55 said:

At the moment it is a wait, and then test.

Click to expand...

A bit unfair, all the fixes and improvements are clearly listed in the revision.txt file available on the download page. There is no point testing something that is not listed!

Technical said:

However the X2 simulator engine is internally completely different and had this new feature added at design (as it is much more recent), so it will already distinguish and simulate a 40 pin chip - simply add a
#picaxe 40x2
directive so the simulator knows you are using a 40 pin chip (it assumes 28 by default).
You will then see a 40 pin layout (portD included) instead of a 28 pin layout in the simulator window.

Click to expand...

Without any #PICAXE XXXX directive, when I select 28X2/40X2, I see port D by default.

A bit unfair, all the fixes and improvements are clearly listed in the revision.txt file available on the download page. There is no point testing something that is not listed!

Click to expand...

I believe that I am far from alone in checking, just in case . . . (see post 2)


Then there is also the situation that I have reported before (when V5.2.9 came out) that if a user sets up links within the PE from the Help/User Datasheets
where a past PE updates deleted the Users datasheet links.
Can this also please be fixed to retain User datasheet links?

While I have not dealt with writing any program installer since DOS and early windows days, and noting that your "user.txt" file is dated 29Nov2005 (and really should not need changing due to its simplicity), it should be just as case of checking during installation the date of the existing file and only updating if the date of the file in the latest bas805 is later than the currently installed version.

Currently I must go into C:\Program Files\Programming Editor\datasheets
copy the "user.txt" file for retention of my links,
then install the latest PE
and then copy the saved User.txt file back into the above mentioned directory.

Sure the current patch only replaces the main progedit.exe and does not disturb the user.txt file,
but the full V5.2.11 installation does replace the user.txt file and thus wipes out the users datasheet links.

The "trouble" with PEEK/POKE bug that I've reported is that I've never received an acknowledge so at this stage I don't know if the bug was noted or isn't a bug and I'm doing something wrong, or is a very minor bug not worth mentioning anymore and so on. That's way I would check the new version of PE.

Receiving any sort of acknowledge would be nice.

westaust55 said:

Without any #PICAXE XXXX directive, when I select 28X2/40X2, I see port D by default.

Click to expand...

It does seem to either default to 40X2 or perhaps whatever was previously selected. As long a "#Picaxe 28x2" or "#Picaxe 40X2" is added to the source then this will bring up the desired PICAXE specific simulation. That's the behaviour with 5.2.10 on this PC, I haven't yet updated it to 5.2.11

Svejk said:

The "trouble" with PEEK/POKE bug that I've reported is that I've never received an acknowledge ... Receiving any sort of acknowledge would be nice.

Click to expand...

Apologies if it wasn't acknowledged but I thought it had been. It's not acknowledged in the post made to the Programming Editor Software forum but I thought it had been acknowledged within an Active Forum thread. If it wasn't then that was my mistake in believing it had been.

We do try to acknowledge all issues and provide workrounds when possible at the earliest opportunity, indicate where more investigation is needed by ourselves, state whether we can replicate the problem or not and provide additional feedback where we can. We can only apologise when we fail to achieve those aims.

westaust55 said:

Without any #PICAXE XXXX directive, when I select 28X2/40X2, I see port D by default.

Click to expand...

Our post mistake - we did in the end choose 40X2 as the default so people didn't ask where the portD pins were! The best solution is to use the directive of the PICAXE chip you are using, so the screen is appropriate.

westaust55 said:

While I have not dealt with writing any program installer since DOS and early windows days, and noting that your "user.txt" file is dated 29Nov2005 (and
...
Currently I must go into C:\Program Files\Programming Editor\datasheets
copy the "user.txt" file for retention of my links,
...
Sure the current patch only replaces the main progedit.exe and does not disturb the user.txt file,
but the full V5.2.11 installation does replace the user.txt file and thus wipes out the users datasheet links.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the Microsoft MSI installtion generation system used has limited options. It is not a question of just being able to do what you want at will, you must use the MSI available options...

The Never Overwrite property of this user.txt file is already set on recent versions of the installer. Therefore if you start with a brand new install this file should then never be overwritten by running a later install (according to the documentation...). Obviously if you run an uninstall and then reinstall you will be deleted the file and starting again from scratch. This is just a feature of the MSI installation system - we cannot 'customise' it to look at a specific date as you suggest.

Of course you could always manually just set the file properties of that file to read only anyway.

Admittedly the header.txt file is not currently set like this - we will change for the next version so that it is.

Details are below:

Installation/Uninstallation PropertiesIn the Installation/Uninstallation Properties section, you can indicate how you want the installer to handle this file with regard to installation and uninstallation.
Never OverwriteIf you select this option, the file—if it exists on the target system—is never overwritten, regardless of the file version.
If you do not select this option, and if the file version on the target system is newer than the version being installed, the file on the target system is not overwritten. However, if the version being installed is newer, the file on the target system is overwritten.

Click to expand...

Thanks Technical