Skip to main content

Runtime Coverage - another VFP 9 Rocks Feature!

Yesterday, I came across another reason why VFP 9 totally rocks above older versions.

I've been aware of it for a while but it struck me at once as to how useful this is, especially at customer sites.

SET COVERAGE TO lets you track how long each line of code is taking. It's used by the VFP Coverage Profiler for both seeing how much of your code you are using and how long it takes.

SET COVERAGE TO xxx.LOG turns it on and outputs all code execution to xxx.log
SET COVERAGE TO turns it off.

In VFP 8 and earlier, you had to be running the Development version of VFP to see the results. This has its problems - as usually, the problems never seem to occur on the Developer's machine but on the end-user's machine.

In VFP 9, however, you can issue a SET COVERAGE TO statement and it will start logging the code even in runtime!

This became extremely valuable yesterday when we were debugging a program that was running as a Windows XP service. It would stop running and we couldn't figure out why. Instead of just providing additional logging messages and overbloating the code - I issued a SET COVERAGE TO in one of the programming hooks I had put into the code and voila! instant access as to what was running and when.

You wouldn't want to do this on a regular basis - running with COVERAGE turned on can create a very large file in a matter of seconds - so be sure to turn it off. But what a benefit to have at the right time!

I also used it earlier this week to track down some performance problems that only seemed to be happening at a customer site. Many times, developers think of debugging tools as to be only accessible within the IDE. Thankfully, in VFP 9, your code can be covered just about wherever it needs to be.



powered by performancing firefox

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....