On Wednesday 15 May 2013 07:22:20 David Carlson wrote:
On 5/15/2013 6:18 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
On Tuesday 14 May 2013 14:43:03 David Carlson wrote:
>
> Since I was in my download directory, I re-installed 2.5.0 and found
>
> that the chart reports are blank in tat release too.
>
> David C
If fact this problem turned out to be easy to repeat and (more
importantly) easy to fix.
The charts weren't displaying in my Windows test setup either. The cause
turned out to
be that path names on Windows start with C: or something similar.
Webbrowsers take
this as an unknown network protocol and due to this will fail to load
the necessary
javascript and css files on that platform if not properly prefixed. This
also explains why
this problem didn't happen on linux or OS X.
I have just committed a fix in r22978. You can try to download
tomorrow's nightly build
or wait for 2.5.2 in a couple of weeks to verify this works.
The memory issues you were having are a different problem. Do you still
run into those ?
If so, that will require a separate evaluation.
Geert I knew it wasn't my imagination, and I suspected that it was
Windows related
because nobody else believed me. Thank You! All I can say about memory
usage is that
the Windows Resource monitor reports much higher RAM usage when I am running
release
2.5.1 than when I am running 2.4.13. Release 2.5.0 and release 2.5.1 also
run a lot slower
than release 2.4.13. I believe Robert expected some of that, but this seems
to be
debilitating. I am not running the new releases enough to see a good
history, though. The
other clue that I have is that there is no RAM issue on this computer when
release 2.5.1 is
not installed and running David C.
David,
For me it was never a matter of not believing you. I asked my questions in an
attempt to get
more details about the exact cause. Your experience is real, but what causes it
is the first
thing to find out. In this case it turned out to be a bug in the software which
I probably could
have determined early on if I had tried to replicate it in my Windows testbox.
It's just become
a habit to first ask for more details before trying myself.
In other cases it might be an issue on the user's PC in which case it makes
sense to ask lots
of questions - I am not in front of that PC to see what is going on...
Anyway. Your remark about memory consumption is well received. It looks like we
better run
some memory/performance testing and optimizations before we release 2.6.
For me personally, it will have to wait a bit. I have more pressing matters to
attend to, but
perhaps another dev is curious (and experienced!) enough to give it a shot.
Geert
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
