[BUG] in ultraschall.GetParmLearn_FXStateChunk(FXStateChunk, j, k): not returning values for parm_idx, parmname

[michaelsjackson]

I am posting my used .lua, .RPP and output text file as .txt in attached .zip file. In my case I have a few minor "bugfix editions" in ultraschall api. Here I am demonstrating even the csv export is not working fully yet, because two values (parm_idx, parmname) are not returned. After this is solved, I can post new examples for csv import cases. I guess this is a longer time bug, because I recognized it earlier, then was using normal Reaper API functions for getting the parameter names for example. But now I would like to use all the available ultraschall API functions, thus it should work via ultraschall API as well.
send_to_github.zip

[mespotine]

Hmm, I think, I can't fix it with the information of the csv.
Can you post me instead some PARMLEARN-entries that work as expected with GetParmLearn_FXStateChunk and some that reproducibly fail?

GetParmLearn_FXStateChunk2 doesn't show this behavior?

[michaelsjackson]

Dear mespotine, no problem, if you do not fix anything.

Did you try the lua in the package on the rpp? You should get same txt output in project directory, hopefully. The lua script is actually a script demonstrating the problem. PARMLEARN entries are not working correctly now. First I was thinking they were working correctly, until I discovered they do not. After investigating more parm_idx and parmname are not returned by GetParmLearn_FXStateChunk. My script is using GetParmLearn_FXStateChunk2, but as it is calling GetParmLearn_FXStateChunk the problem is in this first version, it seems to me.

Are you getting values for parm_idx and parmname with my attached .lua script? If you look closely to the attached .txt file, some lines have the parmname and some do not. If you find anywhere I am not using your functions correctly, I could try those, but I guess I used them already correctly.

Tried with Reaper 6.32 win 32 bit, via wine. Not sure if Reaper .rpp format changed in the latest versions a bit, so your functions behaviours changed? But I guess not.

[michaelsjackson]

In the given example, all reproducibly fail, on my computer.