WATCH filename bug report

Moderators: michael_borland, soliday

Post Reply
lewellen
Posts: 18
Joined: 19 Dec 2012, 18:14

WATCH filename bug report

Post by lewellen » 13 Mar 2013, 15:42

Hello,

This is a bug report for the WATCH element filename.

I'm using elegant version 25.1.0, running on a Windows 7 machine.

Here's a small fragment of the lattice file; the elegant command file is MaRIE.ele
look: watch, filename=<filename goes here>
MaRIE: line=(bunchCharge,pMatch,&
look, LIN.BC, look, L01.SMLS)

I'm getting odd results - including crashes - when attempting to use the rootname filename and counter options for this element.

If I set filename="test.watch", elegant runs fine and I see a file called test.watch in my directory. That works fine.

If I set filename="%s.watch", elegant runs fine and I see a file called MaRIE.watch in my directory. Also fine.

If I set filename="%s-%ld.watch", elegant runs fine and I see two files called MaRIE-1.watch and MaRIE-2.watch. Also fine.

If I set filename="%s-%03ld.watch," elegant crashes quietly as soon as it gets to the first watch point - no error messages, just stops.

If I set filename="%s-%03ld.wat," elegant runs fine and I get MaRIE-001.wat and MaRIE-002.wat in the output directory.

So, there appears to be a bug related to long filename extensions when using the incomplete filename specification to get the occurrence number in the filename.

Cheers,

- John L.








To wit, if I set filename="whatever.watch" I get a single watch file called whatever.watch.

If I set filename="%s.watch" I get a single filename called

michael_borland
Posts: 1933
Joined: 19 May 2008, 09:33
Location: Argonne National Laboratory
Contact:

Re: WATCH filename bug report

Post by michael_borland » 15 Mar 2013, 18:08

John,

Thanks for reporting the bug. I'll try to resolve it before the next release.

--Michael

michael_borland
Posts: 1933
Joined: 19 May 2008, 09:33
Location: Argonne National Laboratory
Contact:

Re: WATCH filename bug report

Post by michael_borland » 17 Mar 2013, 15:05

John,

I'm unable to reproduce this bug. Could you post a set of files that demonstrate the problem?

--Michael

Post Reply