Showing posts with label Bugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bugs. Show all posts

Thursday, 20 November 2014

Railo "unexpected" behaviour: opinions solicited

This will be one of those really quick ones as I have precisely 19min of lunchtime left to write it.

Ryan Guill found some oddness with Railo yesterday, with code like this:

function tikiOtinga(required string s required numeric i){

(his example wasn't in Maori, but hey).

Can you spot what's wrong with it?

Thursday, 30 October 2014

ColdFusion bug challenge: how quickly can one find a bug in ColdFusion 11?

Yesterday at lunchtime, I set myself a challenge: how quickly could I find a new, unreported bug in ColdFusion 11.

Monday, 27 October 2014

FFS, Adobe. Stop being such bloody amateurs

Now this irks me (in case you had not noticed).

Here's a couple new bugs that have gone into the Adobe ColdFusion Bug Tracker:

Tuesday, 23 September 2014

Adobe: stop closing ColdFusion bugs you haven't dealt with

I've had a frickin' gutsful of Adobe's amateurish and disrespectful approach to dealing with bugs in the bug tracker. I spotted yet another "closed, not enough time" issue today. One which hit me back in 2011. It was first raised in 2009. Five years ago. It first cropped up in CFMX7. It's not a complicated one, it's just that the seem to have a glitch in working with leap years, for some date calculations. "Bug 82249:(Watson Migration Closure)Datediff function does not calculate differences correctly".

This has gotta stop, Adobe.

I checked the bugbase to see how many issues had been closed with "not enough time".


Dating back to 2005.

These are all bugs that have impacted paying clients sufficiently for them to bring them to Adobe's attention. And Adobe's reaction is to just go "oh well... [shrug]... [clicks the 'Close' button]".

This is unacceptable.

Tuesday, 16 September 2014

CFML: weirdness with properties

Sigh... didn't take long for me to be writing CFML again. My excuse is this started out being comparison code for a PHP article, but I've run into some issues.

Thursday, 4 September 2014

212... 0

I've been keeping an eye on how many untriaged ColdFusion bugs there are:

Help provide Adobe with more info, pls

Hey, Adobe are struggling to replicate the issue I detail in 'Have found some evidence for that "There was an error accessing this page. Check logs for more details." issue in CFAdmin', and raised as ticket 3810459. Which Adobe have closed as "works OK on my machine".

This is the situation in which CFAdmin will sometimes present this error when trying to make settings changes:

If you have experienced this, could you pls chime in on 3810459? Even if you haven't solved it, providing Adobe more info would be helpful. Plus would help them realise it's a real issue that impacts a bunch of people, not just me and the other bod who has commented.



Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Repro of structCopy() bug

I could put this in a gist or just post the code directly, but it gives me something to write about today. Be wary of structCopy(). There's a bug been raised about it not working on ColdFusion scopes, which Adobe don't quite seem to be able to understand. The ticket is 3815793.

Friday, 22 August 2014

Have found some evidence for that "There was an error accessing this page. Check logs for more details." issue in CFAdmin

I dunno if you've had this before, but I fairly frequently am confronted with this whenever I try to change something in CFAdmin:

This is after I successfully login, and can click around no worries, but as soon as I go to change anything, I get this error. This is a concern because it looks like there's a disconnect between CFAdmin's authentication (logging in) and authorisation (what one can do once logged in).

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

Go and vote, pls

Sorry for the silence recently... my life is getting very... complex of late.

Anyway, Adobe are playing at silly buggers with a bug that they're dragging their heels about, and they are saying it needs more votes to get more attention.

It's to do with CFClient, but just on principal, I've voted for it because they need to stop with these sloppy implementations. Hopefully you think likewise, so will go vote for this: "queryExecute params not working in mobile".

Sloppy, inconsistent implementations ought not need votes to get fixed. Adobe ought to have more pride in their work. But if instead they need votes... let's give them votes.



Tuesday, 5 August 2014

CFML: <cfchart> / <cfchartseries> bug details for Adobe & Railo

I need a place to put some pictures for a coupla bugs I need to raise, so I'll slap 'em in here and point Adobe & Railo at them. There's not much of interest going on below the fold, so don't bother reading it if you have something better to do.

Sunday, 3 August 2014

CFML: That <cfexit> bug I thought I had spotted: solved

Yesterday I asked for some help understanding a mismatch between some code and some docs: "Are the docs for <cfexit> wrong, or am I misunderstanding?".

I just looked at this some more, and discovered the docs are right, Railo is right, and <cfexit> is right. However there's still a bug in ColdFusion...

Here's a refined repro case:

<!--- testusingCfimport.cfm --->
<cfimport taglib="." prefix="t">
    Text within tags<br>

<t:basic exitMethod="exittag">
    Text within tags<br>

<t:basic exitMethod="exittemplate">
    Text within tags<br>

<!--- basic.cfm --->
<cfparam name="attributes.exitMethod" default="">
executionMode: <cfoutput>#thisTag.executionMode#</cfoutput><br>
<cfif thisTag.executionMode EQ "start">
    <cfif len(attributes.exitMethod)>
        exitMethod: <cfoutput>#attributes.exitMethod#</cfoutput><br>
        <cfexit method="#attributes.exitMethod#">
        exitMethod: not specified<br>

Saturday, 2 August 2014

Are the docs for <cfexit> wrong, or am I misunderstanding?

Just before I update the ColdFusion docs and file a bug with Railo, can someone please santiy check this.

Saturday, 19 July 2014

Different bugs in each() function in each of Railo and ColdFusion

A quick one. I was investigating a bug in Railo, detailed in "Arguments - Struct or Array", and as well as verifying the bug in Railo, I found a different one in ColdFusion.

Sunday, 13 July 2014

ColdFusion: some built-in functions aren't actually functions. It seems.

This caught me out the other day, but I've just now had a change to have a look at it some more. In ColdFusion (as distinct from Railo) some built-in CFML functions such as writeLog(), throw() and writeDump() aren't actually functions. Or aren't implemented properly if they are.

Wednesday, 25 June 2014

Looking at the bugs I've raised in Railo

I've always banged on about how Adobe deal with ColdFusion bugs, and what my opinion is of this. I have not - to date - cast my magnifying glass in Railo's direction...

Friday, 13 June 2014

Do me a quick favour?



Thanks, I've got the information I need now. Cheers to everyone who helped.

Could someone pls check whether any of these links yield actual bug records, or simply say:

The information requested is not found
My expectation is that all of them say "not found". Do any work properly for you?

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

Super and mix-ins don't mix very well

True to form for a "web log", here's a summary of the last six hours of my working life (Tues afternoon, Weds morning). The executive summary is "Oh FFS, ColdFusion".

Thursday, 1 May 2014

ColdFusion 11: allowedextforinclude functionality has changed. But the docs haven't been

Remember this one: "ColdFusion 11: preventing files from being included? WTF, Adobe?". I can confirm this verymoderatelyslightly contentious feature has been changed in ColdFusion 11, but the docs have not been updated to reflect the change.

(Note: this functionality was changed to compileextforinclude, by the time ColdFusion 11 was actually released).

The issue is summarised thus (from the article linked-to above):

[...]out of the box ColdFusion 11 will only allow the inclusion of CFML and HTML files. Why? They cite "for security reasons". Here's a quote (posted in the bugtracker, originally from the pre-release forums):
"Vamseekrishna Manneboina: Yes, this was done as part of a security measure. You can now only include CFM/CFML files by default. You can specify additional extensions via a property called allowedextforinclude in neo-runtime.xml. By default, HTM and HTML file extensions are already added to this list/property, thereby allowing for inclusion of HTM and HTML files too by default."
OK, I disagree there's merit in this, some others agree, others disagree. But... so be it. I actually thought - if I was in a charitable mood - that the people that were "for" this change made a reasonable case for its inclusion, so - whilst not agreeing with them - I was content to just shrug and go "yeah, oh well".