You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Franz Demmel has reported a problem with SaveNexus, in that it fails on a throw of "tm unable to handle not-a-date-time value" which I have traced to being linked to the AlgorithmHistory::printSelf and DateAndTime::to_tm functions.
Unfortunately, it seems like this is some strange relic of Franz's setup (affects both his laptop and desktop) - but as his machine was setup in a standardised way by ISIS IT then it may become a more widespread problem on release, though I am unable to reproduce it in a development environment to provide more details.
Through trying different versions of the installer, I have narrowed down the introduction of this bug to between [6006] and [6046], so shortly after the last release.
Installers are not available for Win32 intervening period for some reason, but looking at the revision log it would seem that the most likely candidate for introducing it is 6022.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Original Reporter: Michael Whitty
Franz Demmel has reported a problem with SaveNexus, in that it fails on a throw of "tm unable to handle not-a-date-time value" which I have traced to being linked to the AlgorithmHistory::printSelf and DateAndTime::to_tm functions.
Unfortunately, it seems like this is some strange relic of Franz's setup (affects both his laptop and desktop) - but as his machine was setup in a standardised way by ISIS IT then it may become a more widespread problem on release, though I am unable to reproduce it in a development environment to provide more details.
Through trying different versions of the installer, I have narrowed down the introduction of this bug to between [6006] and [6046], so shortly after the last release.
Installers are not available for Win32 intervening period for some reason, but looking at the revision log it would seem that the most likely candidate for introducing it is 6022.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: