Fusebox 5.1 - Bug Fixes — An Architect's View

Fusebox 5.1 - Bug Fixes

December 20, 2006 · 2 Comments

I thought I'd start with the boring part - the bug fixes. For the most part, bug fixes have focused on compatibility with Fusebox 4.1 to help ensure even smoother migrations from legacy applications to the newer version of the framework:

attributes scope was not available in an exception handler. (140)
"Element fusebox is undefined" exception after renaming application. (153)
Fuseaction permissions is handled incorrectly. Fuseactions without the attribute accidentally inherited it from fuseactions that did! (155)
Expand Boolean literals that are acceptable - Fusebox 4.1 accepted "yes" and "no" as well and "true" and "false" for attributes that were supposed to be boolean. Fusebox 5 only allowed "true" and "false". Fusebox 5.1 now allows "yes" and "no" as well. (157)
Sequence of conditional logic in <if> block. Fusebox 5 forced you to have your <true> clause before your <false> clause. Fusebox 5.1 correctly allows either order. (160)
Include bug. If you included a file using a variable name and said it was optional, you'd still get an exception if it was not present in Fusebox 5. Fusebox 5.1 handles this correctly. (162)
Paths with . in the folder names fail when using relative paths. (163 - not fixed in SVN yet!)

Then there were a handful of bugs logged around the way Fusebox 5 didn't always notice a circuit file had changed. This was due to cfdirectory only returning the "last modified" date / time to the nearest minute on certain operating system / locale combinations. Fusebox 5.1 now uses Java code to check the date / time (which is accurate to the second everywhere). (99, 166, 167). I'll cover new features in a future post. Stay tuned!

View count: 239

Tags: coldfusion · fusebox

2 responses so far ↓

1 Peter J. Farrell // Dec 20, 2006 at 1:51 PM

As per the last modified problem, this was handled in Mach-II 1.1.0 (from a year ago) without java by using both the last modified and size of the config file. Unless it's a one character change (for the most part) this works perfect. Just thought you might like to know that there is an elegant way without using java directly.
2 Sean Corfield // Dec 20, 2006 at 2:17 PM

Peter, yes, my original thoughts were to use the Mach II approach - see bug notes:

http://trac.fuseboxframework.org/fusebox/ticket/99

In the end, folks felt the same-size character change was too likely to warrant that approach (changing dsp_something to frm_something or qry_something to act_something for example).

We also had testers confirm that, in principle at least, the Java code was portable to Railo and BD (even BD.NET as I recall).

Beta testing will tell us more...

An Architect's View

CFML, Clojure, Software Design, Frameworks and more...