This is what REALLY SUCKS about RunRev! - was Menubar Help

[David Burgun]

>On Nov 25, 2005, at 2:59 AM, David Burgun wrote:
>
>>>It's entirely possible to have a group that is not on any card. To 
>>>do this, simply create a new stack, add a button, group the 
>>>button, and type this in the message box:
>>>
>>>remove group 1 from this card
>>>
>>>It's a limitation in the app browser, certainly, that the group in 
>>>question won't show up in the stack. It shouldn't show up under 
>>>the card, because it's not on the card.
>>
>>In this case, if it's not in the card, then surely it's not in the 
>>stack and should not be available for "Placing" or whatver.
>
>This simply isn't true. It is possible for a group to exist in a 
>stack _without_ being on any card in that stack. The above method 
>will create such a stack/group. As Jacque pointed out, if there are 
>more than one card in a stack and you delete the last card 
>containing a group, that will also leave you with a stack containing 
>backgrounds that are not on any card.

Where in the documentation does it tell you this?

>>>
>>>I'm not sure I'm following what you're describing after that part, 
>>>but it sounds like you placed the group, which would make it show 
>>>up in the app browser, allowing you to delete it.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Again, I'm not sure I'm following, but it sounds like getting rid 
>>>of this extraneous group fixed your menu bar problems. If so, 
>>>great.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>So, there is definitely a limitation in the app browser, but not a 
>>>bug. It sounds like a useful feature request to backgrounds that 
>>>aren't in any card under the stack.
>>
>>No. it's a bug in RunRev. The only way a group could be created 
>>like that, is in a stack that exists in memory but not as a file. 
>>This is possible - once! But during the course of tracking this 
>>problem down I quit RunRev, restarted the machine and re-loaded 
>>RunRev. The Group was part of the stack where the error occured. 
>>When I created another stack the problem wasn't present, yet the 
>>Group in question was still in the Place Groups Sub-Menu. Besides 
>>all this I really don't think a Group can exist (or at least be 
>>accessible by RunRev), unless it is in a stack, and all stacks have 
>>at least one card, and they should appear in the App Browser anyway.
>
>You are correct that a group can't exist outside a stack. You are 
>correct that a stack must have at least one card. You are incorrect 
>that therefore the group must be in the card. You are incorrect that 
>this is a bug. It is a limitation.  The app browser doesn't display 
>any contents for the stack itself -- this is a limitation. If the 
>group _is_ on the card and _doesn't_ show up on that card in the app 
>browser, _that_ would be a bug. But that's not what you described.
>

Of course it's a bug in RunRev! As well as a limitation of the of App 
Browser, the two together makes things even worse though, which is 
possibly what you meant, e.g. RunRev created a Group out of thin air 
and stored it in the Stack then used it for the menu for that stack, 
then since the App Browser can't display items that belong to just a 
stack, it was difficult to know it existed and therefore get rid of 
it!

If that isn't a bug *and* a limitation then I'd like to know what you 
would consider a bug!!!

>
>>
>>>How the group got there in the first place remains a question for 
>>>investigation. You can certainly submit it as a bug. If it's not 
>>>reproducible it'll be difficult to confirm, and harder to fix 
>>>(assuming it is in fact a bug).
>>
>>Yes, It's a Bug - Shock Horror! There are loads of em in RunRev - 
>>Get used to it and stop being in denial!
>
>No denial here. I can view the report in bugzilla and see that there 
>are currently 586 active bugs, which is far fewer than there were a 
>few years ago. I submitted some of them, too. Most of mine have been 
>closed (I haven't submitted any lately). As others have pointed out, 
>sarcasm and hostility isn't likely to help things much.

I have in no way meant ot be hostile! I was trying to lighten up the 
whole proceedings, and to me 586 bugs is a LOAD!

I should hope that there are far fewer bugs than years ago!

All the Best
Dave