Hi all, hopefully a fairly quick question. I already ran this by Deuce in #synchronet, but he wasn't quite sure and suggested I ask DM. Rather than s a message directly to DM, I figured I might as well use the echo! Woooo!
Anyway, I've written my own shell in JavaScript. For the option that users select to scan for new messages, I have it executing:
bbs.scan_subs(SCAN_NEW, false);
This works great at scanning new messages, but, it fails to constrain the sc to only the areas that are enabled in the new message scan config. I looked
Are you absolutely positive? That's the correct JS method to use and it calls the same underlying code that is used in all the Baja shells and the other .js shells uses that method with no problem.
Re: Scanning for new messages
By: Digital Man to MysticOne on Wed Jan 02 2008 10:55 am
Are you absolutely positive? That's the correct JS method to use and it calls the same underlying code that is used in all the Baja shells and th other .js shells uses that method with no problem.
Yes, if I run that it will scan all echoes, even the ones I have marked not scan. The same thing happens for scanning for new messages when I log in, a prompted, and select "Yes". Keep in mind this is also on my SysOp account, just in case that makes a difference for some reason.
No, it makes no difference. I suspect you're confusing one type of scan configuration with another. If you logon using a stock command shell and perform a new-scan, do you have the same problem? Make sure you're configuring the *new* message scan (e.g. &N from the Synchronet classic command shell) and not the *your* message scan (&S) - these are 2 different stored message scan configurations for 2 different purposes.
Re: Scanning for new messages
By: Digital Man to MysticOne on Thu Jan 03 2008 08:38 pm
No, it makes no difference. I suspect you're confusing one type of scan configuration with another. If you logon using a stock command shell and perform a new-scan, do you have the same problem? Make sure you're configuring the *new* message scan (e.g. &N from the Synchronet classic command shell) and not the *your* message scan (&S) - these are 2 differe stored message scan configurations for 2 different purposes.
For the configuration option, I'm using:
bbs.cfg_msg_scan(SCAN_CFG_NEW);
For the scanning option, I'm using:
bbs.scan_subs(SCAN_NEW, false);
That's apparently what's being used in classic_shell.js as well. But, I haven't switched over to that shell yet to try it out and see if I get the s behavior.
Those are the same methods used in lbshell.js, which doesn't not exhibit
the problem you're describing.
Re: Scanning for new messages
By: Digital Man to MysticOne on Thu Jan 10 2008 12:19 pm
Those are the same methods used in lbshell.js, which doesn't not exhibit
the problem you're describing.
Exactly! Since it doesn't not exhibit the problem, when will a fix be available? :)
Exactly! Since it doesn't not exhibit the problem, when will a fix be available? :)
<hand_waving_frantically>
Oh Oh OH !!! Let me take this one...
</hand_waving_frantically>
If it's not exihibiting a problem... I'd say instantly. *I* could even
fix something that is not exhibiting any problems.
Re: Scanning for new messages
By: Finnigann to Digital Man on Fri Jan 11 2008 03:17 pm
Exactly! Since it doesn't not exhibit the problem, when will a fix available? :)
<hand_waving_frantically>
Oh Oh OH !!! Let me take this one...
</hand_waving_frantically>
If it's not exihibiting a problem... I'd say instantly. *I* could even fix something that is not exhibiting any problems.
You missed the part where DM said that it does NOT NOT exhibit the problem. That's a double-negative, meaning it DOES exhibit the problem. :)
Re: Scanning for new messages
By: Finnigann to Digital Man on Fri Jan 11 2008 03:17 pm
Exactly! Since it doesn't not exhibit the problem, when will a fix be available? :)
<hand_waving_frantically>
Oh Oh OH !!! Let me take this one...
</hand_waving_frantically>
If it's not exihibiting a problem... I'd say instantly. *I* could even
fix something that is not exhibiting any problems.
You missed the part where DM said that it does NOT NOT exhibit the problem. That's a double-negative, meaning it DOES exhibit the problem.
:)
You missed the part where DM said that it does NOT NOT exhibit the problem. That's a double-negative, meaning it DOES exhibit the problem. :)
Yeah, of course I meant "does not exhibit the problem". Are you still
having this problem with your command shell?
You missed the part where DM said that it does NOT NOT exhibit the problem. That's a double-negative, meaning it DOES exhibit the
problem. :)
You could have quoted that part...
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,055 |
| Nodes: | 17 (1 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 00:36:44 |
| Calls: | 501,024 |
| Calls today: | 11 |
| Files: | 109,384 |
| D/L today: |
2,211 files (186M bytes) |
| Messages: | 304,876 |
| Posted today: | 1 |