I am currently doing code testing in sdaccel2018.2. When transmitting between the host and the device, I use a custom data structure. The current results show that the results of the software simulation are completely correct, but the same code is used in the hardware simulation, under the environment, the result of the operation is completely wrong, and there is even a situation where the data on the device side is not read. (Here I think it can be ruled out the problem of the host-side code, because there is no problem with software emulation). Since the emulation doesn't give any hints about errors, I'm not sure where the problem is. I even just did data in and data out, but still couldn't get the correct result. Not sure if anyone can give some advice?
Related
I would like to know Why we need to compile the program of progress 4GL? Really what is happening behind there? Why we are getting .r file after compiled the program? When we check the syntax if its correct then we will get one message box 'Syntax is correct' how its finding the errors and showing the messages.Any explanations welcome and appreciated.
Benefits of compiled r-code include:
Syntax checking
Faster execution (r-code executes faster)
Security (r-code is not "human readable" and tampering with it will likely be noticed)
Licensing (r-code runtime licenses are much less expensive)
For "how its finding the errors and showing the messages" -- at a high level it is like any compiler. It evaluates the provided source against a syntax tree and lets you know when you violate the rules. Compiler design and construction is a fairly advanced topic that probably isn't going to fit into a simple SO question -- but if you had something more specific that could stand on its own as a question someone might be able to help.
The short answer is that when you compile, you're translating your program to a language the machine understands. You're asking two different questions here, so let me give you a simple answer to the first: you don't NEED to compile if you're the only one using the program, for example. But in order to have your program optimized (since it's already at the machine language level) and guarantee no one is messing with your logic, we compile the code and usually don't allow regular users to access the source code.
The second question, how does the syntax checker work, I believe it would be better for you to Google and choose some articles to read about compilers. They're complex, but in a nutshell what they do is take what Progress expects as full, operational commands, and compare to what you do. For example, if you do a
Find first customer where customer.active = yes no-error.
Progress will check if customer is a table, if customer.active is a field in that table, if it's the logical type, since you are filtering if it is yes, and if your whole conditions can be translated to one single true or false Boolean value. It goes on to check if you specified a lock (and default to shared if you haven't, like in my example, which is a no-no, by the way), what happens if there are multiple records (since I said first, then get just the first one) and finally what happens if it fails. If you check the find statement, there are more options to customize it, and the compiler will simply compare your use of the statement to what Progress can have for it. And collect all errors if it can't. That's why sometimes compilers will give you generic messages. Since they don't know what you're trying to do, all they can do is tell you what's basically wrong with what you wrote.
Hope this helps you understand.
What is the preferred (or just a good) pattern for a multi-part Codecept.js scenario, such as this:
Select file to upload.
Clear selection.
Select file to upload after having cleared selection.
I can do this in a single scenario and use I.say to delineate the parts, but it feels like I should be able to write these as independent scenarios and use .only on part 2, for example, and have part 1 run prior to part 2, because it depends on it.
I would also want to skip parts 2 and 3 if part 1 fails when running the whole suite.
I like thinking about behaviour in terms of capabilities. I can see that you have a couple here:
Uploading files
Correcting mistakes while uploading files.
So I would expect these to be in two scenarios:
One where you actually upload the file
One where you correct mistakes you make.
A lot of people say there should only be one "When" in scenarios, but that doesn't take into account interactions with people (including your past mistaken self) or time. In this situation, it's the whole process of correcting the file upload that provides the value. I can't see any value in the intermediate steps, so I'd leave them all in one scenario.
If there's any different behaviour associated with different contexts (eg: you've already got too many files uploaded) or outcomes (eg: your file system doesn't have room) or rules (eg: your status means you qualify for super-fast upload) then I would expect those to be new scenarios. If you start getting to the point where there are a lot of scenarios associated with file uploads and different things that happen to them, that might be a good time to separate this scenario out. Right now I can't see any reason to do that.
Re failing the first part: if you're doing BDD right, you'll be talking through not just the behaviour of your system, but the behaviour of individual bits of code too. That should help produce a good design which minimizes the chances of having bugs. Really good BDD teams produce scenarios that hardly ever catch bugs!
The scenarios act as living documentation, rather than regression tests; helping future devs understand the value of the code and get it right, rather than nailing it down to stop them getting it wrong.
So I wouldn't worry about it failing. If it's doing that a lot, you've got a different problem. Code it as if it's going to be passing most of the time, and make sure it's readable and comprehensible. As long as you can see when it fails and work it out, even if that takes a little bit of time, it'll be fine.
Having said that, I'd be surprised if Codecept doesn't have at least an option to stop on failure. Most BDD tools don't continue a scenario after a failed step; it would be an odd thing to do.
As far as I know, you're not be able to set priority for execution in codeceptjs. Better make one test. it is also will be more flexible if you will need to add or delete some part.
This is a bit of a meta-question, and I'll try to include all the relevant bits and bobs. Also, it may be a completely preposterous idea, so don't hate me if it's stupid :)
Anyhow. For the project I'm currently working on, I need to collecting heaps and heaps of data. Currently I'm collecting the data from twitter, later on I might be collecting data from other sources. I've set up R to run on a server and I've written a piece of code (a simple infinite repeat loop) that continuously collects data along some pre-defined parameters.
Since I started data collection 2 days ago the code hasn't failed. However, what if it does and I don't notice? I'm obviously not monitoring the data collection process constantly. Is there any way, maybe a package for R, or a creative piece of code, that could be built into the loop which would alert me to the fact that the code has failed, or perhaps just send me a daily status update?
I am aware that R is probably not the best way of getting these heaps of data from the web. As it happens, I'm a social scientist and trying to work my way through the whole computer science angle of using big data bit by bit. So, basically, I will try to properly learn Python in the future, as people keep telling me this is a more adequate tool for my endeavours. However, as it stands now, my code is working, and I'd like to make sure I don's miss out on an important development.
Thanks in advance for your help!
I need to know if the data for training that is passed in the neuralnet call is randomized in the routine or does the routine uses the data in the same order that is given. I really need to know this info for a project that I am working on, and I have not being able to figure it out by looking at the source.
Thnx!
Look into the code - thats one of the most important advantages of FOSS: you can actually check what it is doing (neuralnet is pure R, so you don't even need to fear that you need to dig into FORTRAN or C code, and you can use debug to step through the code with example data to get an overview).
Moreover, if necessary, you can even introduce e.g. a new parameter that allows you to switch off randomization if needed.
Possibly maintainer ("neuralnet") would be willing to help you as well (and able to answer much faster than about everyone else here on SE).
I am attempting to write a userspace application that can hook into an OS's network stack, sniff packets flying past and edit ones that its interested in.
After much Googling, it appears to me that the simplest (yet reasonably robust) method of doing so (on any platform) is Linux's libnetfilter_queue project. However, I'm having trouble finding any reasonable documentation for the project, outside of the limited official documentation. Its main features (as stated by the first link are)
receiving queued packets from the kernel nfnetlink_queue subsystem
issuing verdicts and/or reinjecting altered packets to the kernel nfnetlink_queue subsystem
Emphasis is my own. How exactly am I meant go about this? I've tried modifying the sample code provided, but perhaps I am misunderstanding something. The code is operating in NFQNL_COPY_PACKET mode, so I am receiving the whole packet -- but my modifications to it seem to be restricted to my own application -- as one would expect, given the "copy" semantics.
My feeling is that I am meant to make use of NF_QUEUE somehow, but I haven't quite grokked it. Any pointers?
(If there is a simpler mechanism for doing this, which is also cross-platform, I'd love to hear about it!)
I can't believe I missed this previously. As reticent as I am to post questions on SO, I thought I would never work this one out myself. :)
I didn't look at the function prototype properly. It turns out in the "verdict" function (outlined below),
int nfq_set_verdict(struct nfq_q_handle *qh,
u_int32_t id,
u_int32_t verdict,
u_int32_t data_len,
const unsigned char *buf
)
The last two parameters are for the data to be returned to the network stack. Obvious in hindsight, but I missed it completely as the print_pkt function doesn't take the packet data as a parameter, but extracts it from the struct nfq_data.
The key is to NF_ACCEPT the packet and pass the suitably modified packet back to the kernel.
Just a wild guess from digging around the source code: try explicitly adding the mangled payload using nfnl_addattr_l(…, NFQA_PAYLOAD, …)?