BeatsAudioManager randomly triggers "apisecurity" when trying to play a track. This happens about 30% of the time. If I wait a minute and try again, it works. The crossdomain.xml file appears to be loading. Any ideas of what could be the problem?
This happens infrequently and on an account basis only. We would need to address your issue, specifically. A generalized answer is not available. Please email us at beatsplatform#beatsmusic.com
Related
I have a multiplayer project which has some forever loops with checking code inside of them.
The problem is, multiple computers might process this and change crabx or craby due to lag in the variables dvotes, uvotes, lvotes, or rvotes. Only one machine should change this, though.
This can be easily solved by giving each player an ID like many people do in SQL. I would just check if the ID is 1, and that would be the "operating machine". I would then do all of these checks on that one machine. It would do things a Scratch server would do if you could program it...
The problem with this is that there is no way to detect when a player leaves the game. There is no block that is called "on exit" or "on stop button pressed". How would I go about doing this? I have seen people have a button which people click to exit, but some people will not click it/not even see it.
Thanks in advance!
Option 1
I've never been especially successful with cloud data myself, but I've heard the theory on this before:
Essentially, each player gets a "counter". Their computer then constantly increases that counter. If the counter ever stops increasing (which will be detected by the other computers, who are all looking after one another), the project will know that the user has left and one of the computers will take care of removing their ID and other data.
Obviously, this is much easier said than done. (As I said, I've never gotten complex cloud data to work well for myself, but I've seen it done successfully and explained.)
Option 2
Alternatively, you might be better off taking advantage of this cloud api created by MegaApuTurkUltra. I find that stealing from others tends to be the best way of solving problems when it comes to code. ;)
So I have had this bug for a long time that I have been unable to track down. The problem is I cant recreate it often.
So far I have tracked the bug down to a specific process that basically goes like this.
Their are three simultaneous processes that go on that take different lengths of time. After each process is done it sets a boolean "key" to true, and then triggers a function that checks if all "keys" are in place. Basically once the last "key" is in it will actually start to do things.
Somewhere in the key setting process, or earlier, or even possibly after it crashes. Unfortunately it leaves a really cryptic error message, and when it crashes in Xcode it is "EXEC BAD ACESS" and thus just puts a breakpoint in the app delegate declaration.
I am sure I can easily fix this bug, I just dont know enough on how to fix this. Thankfully I have fabric which allows me to print to a text file that I can see when a user crashes. Each update I add new data to it (at the cost of a tad bit of latency) in order to better understand how it happened. Each new crash gets me closer. Unfortunately though I have slow adoption rates to new versions and the crashes just keep building up! I still dont know why.
Unfortunately because this crash only happens once in a blue moon (atleast on my device) on my device. And because of the low new version updates I have to collect the data myself. Which is really hard!
I have tried tons of methods of trying to get things to go wrong, or making the process that caused it happen rapidly, or even having auto pressing buttons. Still i cant get it to crash again! And when it does all I can do to track down the bug is add more println calls so I can see what is going on.
The freaky thing is for all I know I could have already fixed it because I usually try new tweaks ect. But I won't know because it won't consistently crashes. Honestly i'm fairly sure I fixed it (or at least took down the chances of it happening).
What would you do in a situation like this?
This sound like a race condition
I would use NSOperationQueue to make sure that all he tasks are done in order and that all are actually completed before the final one is performed.
Hello fellow programmers, I wish everyone a good morning.
The Situation
Laravel is great. Laravel Mail queues and the beanstalkd integration is great. It took me almost no time to get everything working. The sun is shining and its not raining. Its awesome.
Except when an exception is thrown while sending an email. Then thise mail is processed again and again and again and the exception is also thrown again and again and again.
Infinite loop.
I think I wouldnt even notice this if I wouldn't have seeded the database with invalid data. Validation usually would have taken care of that, that emails like 361FlorindaMatthäi#gmail.com dont end up with the folowing exception:
[Swift_RfcComplianceException]
Address in mailbox given [361FlorindaMatthäi#gmail.com] does not
comply with RFC 2822, 3.6.2.
But what validation wouldnt have taken care for is for example, when my mandrill account reaches its limits or my server looses internet connection, whatever. An Exception sends it into an infinite loop.
In the world where the sun is shining and everything is great the job has to be marked as buried or suspended and the next email should be processed. An infinite loop with an invalid email address is not great.
Basicly your application doesnt send out any emails anymore. This guy has roughly the same issue.
How can I fix this? Has anyone else encountered this Error?
Any Help is much appreciated.
You just need to travel Laravel how many times to try a specific job, before deciding it has failed:
php artisan queue:daemon --tries=3
This way, it will stop processing that specific job after 3 tries.
The hard part of any queue-based system is dealing with the errors, I've run tens of millions of jobs through BeanstalkD and many more through other systems like SQS.
With this Swift_RfcComplianceException exception it's clear that the job will never be able to succeed, and so trying it again would be futile.
Some other problems might be able to be recovered, but in either event, you have to wrap the code in a try/catch block and do what you can.
Since there is no way to 'fix' this particular issue, I would record what happened (the name of the exception and any message, and the data) to a log to check on, and then delete or bury the job. If you store the job-id in the log when it is buried it, you can go back and delete or kick that particular job again later - this would be after being able to change what happens to the job (rather than having it fail again).
Let's say, Tiny Tower. On this iPhone game, you can have shops in your tower. You can suspend or turn off the iPhone, but when you return to the game, you will be reported about the shop winnings during your time away.
There are also push notifications when a building is complete etc.
I fear I do not understand how that works, exactly. I'm not asking for the exact solution, I just need to know where to begin researching. One idea I had some time ago was like calculate the amount of seconds the user was away (current time minus the time when you left) and then calculate shop processing for every one of these seconds. But I'm not sure of that.
A better way would be to calculate before you close the app.
Figure out what time it is, then calculate when in the future certain tasks will be completed. This way, you can schedule push notifications to the server ahead of time.
If you calculate after you have re-opened the app, and you can't run processes with the app closed, how will it know when to push?
Take a look at this article about push notifications to understand a little bit better how they work.
http://blog.boxedice.com/2009/07/10/how-to-build-an-apple-push-notification-provider-server-tutorial/
For offline games you add temporal logic to your items and recalculate when game is launched. For online games you retrieve game state from the server, which is constantly recalculating for all users, even disconnected ones.
Game most probably does not actually process in the background (most apps are not allowed to do anything while in background). When you relaunch the game, it calculates how much time has passed, and then processes all the events that would have happened in the meantime.
Additionally, as Paul.s mentioned in comments below, as well as other people in other answers have suggested, on iOS4 you can use local push notifications scheduled before close.
It is either server side execution of the game or if it is a game of chance or something like Farmville where it's determined by time duration.
If you were to make a server and/or game like this then you would need to decide which route to take.
If it will be something where the user has good days and sometimes bad days then you'll need a lot more server power. however, if it's something like time based then you would be able to tell the last time they were logged in and the next time that they should be awarded. you can also take this idea and for each variable that you store, you store how long it takes to be complete and the start time. Then you would do a simple If then o see if the item is ready. The same thing can work for a number of visitors. Where you have 10 visitors per item per hour. If you have two items then each hour you will receive 20 visitors.
I was working on something for a client today when I found a way to break some functionality in our program.
(The code is really legacy code, it's been in development for about 10 years and I've only been working here for about a year.)
It didn't cause an error, or cause the program to crash, but if a user was using the program and duplicated the behavior I'm pretty sure they'd be holding up their "WTF?" flag.
In our program we have named fields (textboxes) and static text (labels) that can be linked with the textboxes. When the textbox is not filled in the label(s) that were linked to them disappear.
The functionality that I broke was, when you change the name of a textbox that already has one label or more linked to it, and save the file, without re-associating the one or more labels associated with the textbox, the formerly-associated labels appear when the textbox is blank.
Now my thinking on the matter is that a simple observer pattern could have solved this problem in the first place, but then I didn't write the code.
I was thinking that if I could dig up more situations like this with the guys in my shop, that maybe I could talk them into considering unit testing, decoupling, applying patterns where they are called for and the like.
So for this reason I was wondering if anyone had any tips for finding broken (but not error causing) functionality in any sort of app (web-based, desktop, etc...)
For an app to fail usability, it has to have a defined set of expected behaviors.
"Is this textbox SUPPOSED to do nothing when the enter key is pressed?" Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I've seen apps where a tester/reviewer reports something that they ASSUME should work another way, when in actuality the client specifically asked that they DON'T want the form submitted on a return key press, but only a submit button click.
So basically you have to define proper behaviour before you can determine incorrect behavior.
Hire some testers.
If it has an interface, then one of my favorite unconventional test is putting 5-10 year old children in front of it. You'd be surprised what they can come up with (especially the younger ones). While this may sound like a joke, it isn't -- it really works, because children don't have the mindset of only going through "mindset" paths.
And yeah, children are the experts in "breaking things" xP.
Code inspections, i.e. reading the source code: if you had taken time to read/inspect the source code, looking for "smells" or even just looking for code whose behaviour you don't immediately understand and agree with, you might have been holding up your "WTF?" flag too.
Test, test, test.
Do unexpected things. Start doing one task and switch another to see if anything goes haywire. Use the back button when you're not supposed to. Open it in two windows. Let it time out.
Test in all browsers, especially IE.
You can find database connections/sessions aren't released by:
working out the minimum number of connections you need to do something
setting resource limits to that minimum number
ensuring one "run" of the scenario that should use exactly that number (and release it afterwards)
then run it again a few times... do you run out of connections?
I used to work in a company where programmers regularly used to forget to de-allocate db connections. The standard answer was to reduce the resource to a minimum to see if there's a leak - and to try to work out where it is by restarting the system and running different scenarios repeatedly.
The first hour of code review, with the first reviewer, will do the most to find quality problems. But here's the thing: You don't need to convince people of quality problems. You need to convince them of the value of fixing bugs, and of rewriting only when the present quality absolutely justifies it.
I've dealt with some seriously bad code in my time. But you can't just rewrite. You need a spec before you can even tell if the rewrite is an improvement.
Sometimes, you have to infer the spec from the code and then check it against some human somewhere. But by the time you've done that, you understand the code as written and are now better prepared to repair than to rewrite -- most of the time.
Repair proceeds by a process of small behavior-preserving modifications that render the spec more clear in the code. Then, when you find something that looks wrong, you don't just change it. You ask around until you find the person responsible for that decision, and you get them to show you where in the spec it says that behavior X is correct. (This conversation can take many forms.) If you're lucky, they'll tell you that behavior X is in fact incorrect, and then you've earned your pay.
assert()
Also unit testing with coverage analysis.
This is particular to the Visual Studio IDE, although it probably also applies to others:
During testing, always at some point run in the debugger with "Break when an exception is thrown" turned on.
This can often help expose exceptions which are incorrectly being silently caught and which represent bugs, but otherwise may not be evident.
Code reviews should always also include reviews of the unit test code.
The problem is that with ad-hoc testing it's impossible to know how much or how well a developer has tested their code. So, you're at the mercy of different developers definition of the word "done".
If you include reviews of the unit test code at the same time you review the production code you should have a good idea of whether the code is really complete; in that "complete" includes "tested". Not just "Hey, I'll throw it over the wall to the testers!".