"Eurekalog version" in Delphi .dof file

[Mattias]

Is this version number currently checked in the code to perform certain actions? It is continuously overwritten in our common .dof file by developers here who either don't upgrade their eurekalog versions, or do it in a way that this line is not updated.

[Mattias]

I should say that I'm personally building our official executables, and I always use the latest Eurekalog in our project, but the .dof file often displays an old version number.

[admin]

Hi,

Mattias wrote:
> Is this version number currently checked in the code to perform certain
> actions? It is continuously overwritten in our common .dof file by
> developers here who either don't upgrade their eurekalog versions, or
> do it in a way that this line is not updated.

The version number is always updated in the .dof file when the project
is saved.
But in the Delphi 2005/2006 the version number is saved in the .bdsproj
file not in the .dof file.

--
Best regards...

Fabio Dell'Aria.
----------------
http://www.eurekalog.com
Catch every BUG, every time!

[admin]

Hi,

Mattias wrote:
> I should say that I'm personally building our official executables, and
> I always use the latest Eurekalog in our project, but the .dof file
> often displays an old version number.

Try to do this:

1)...Close all opened Delphi/CBuilder instances;
2)...Deinstall all installed EurekaLog versions;
3)...Remove all folders containing the ExceptionLog.* or
?ExceptionExpert.* files;
4)...download and install the last EurekaLog version;
5)...restart your PC.

I'm waiting to your feedback as soon as possible, ok? :)


--
Best regards...

Fabio Dell'Aria.
----------------
http://www.eurekalog.com
Catch every BUG, every time!

[Mattias]

Yeah, I did that. (Maybe I also had to turn Eurekalog off before deinstalling)

My problem is that I have to either ensure that all developers go through this procedure every time a version is released (tried, failed), or babysit them and monitor the (shared) file myself.

So I'm wondering if any Eurekalog code is dependent on the version number specified in the .dof file, because it often doesn't match the (newer) version I have installed. If it's not dependent, then I'll gladly stop worrying about getting "5.0.2" in the .dof file, as soon as someone checks in project files from their not so updated systems.

[admin]

Hi,

Mattias wrote:
> Yeah, I did that. (Maybe I also had to turn Eurekalog off before
> deinstalling)
>
> My problem is that I have to either ensure that all developers go
> through this procedure every time a version is released (tried,
> failed), or babysit them and monitor the (shared) file myself.
>
> So I'm wondering if any Eurekalog code is dependent on the version
> number specified in the .dof file, because it often doesn't match the
> (newer) version I have installed. If it's not dependent, then I'll
> gladly stop worrying about getting "5.0.2" in the .dof file, as soon as
> someone checks in project files from their not so updated systems.

I can guarantee to you that for any Project saving the .dof or .bdsproj
file is always updated with the last EurekaLog version number (field:
"EurekaLog Version").

Can you send to me the incriminate .dof file, please?

--
Best regards...

Fabio Dell'Aria.
----------------
http://www.eurekalog.com
Catch every BUG, every time!

[Mattias]

The file is write-protected until I check it out in our source code manager. I don't have a reason to do this very often, except for resetting this version because of other people's laid-back attitudes. :mad:

It's really a silly problem, and it might have zero impact..

[admin]

Hi,

Mattias wrote:
> The file is write-protected until I check it out in our source code
> manager. I don't have a reason to do this very often, except for
> resetting this version because of other people's laid-back attitudes.
> :mad:
>
> It's really a silly problem, and it might have zero impact..

OK, I have more checked my old sources just to can answered to your needs...

....and I can finally tell you to don't worry if your version is >= 500
(5.x), because all the internal checks are makes only to convert the old
4.x options format into the new 5.x format! ;)

I hope to have definitely help you to solve the problem! :)


--
Best regards...

Fabio Dell'Aria.
----------------
http://www.eurekalog.com
Catch every BUG, every time!

[Mattias]

Thanks, :)
and sorry for not being clear enough in the first posts.

[admin]

Hi,

Mattias wrote:
> Thanks, :)
> and sorry for not being clear enough in the first posts.

Don't worry.
You're welcome! ;)

--
Best regards...

Fabio Dell'Aria.
----------------
http://www.eurekalog.com
Catch every BUG, every time!