Изменения

===Debugging Code===

===Отладка кода===

Bugs happen. Actually that is an understatement in large projects. Bugs happen frequently. This is fortunate, because there is nothing more satisfying than exterminating a bug.

Или иначе дебаггинг(debugging).

The novice programmer has far too much faith in the compiler. The veteran bug hunter, however, knows that just because the code compiles doesn't mean it works. It could still be infested with potential problems.

<!--The first rule for successful debugging is to compile the code yourself. Of course you do not need to generate the byte code by hand; that's what the compiler is for. Compiling the code yourself means reading through the code you have written as though you were the compiler and making sure what the compiler sees matches what you intended.-->

The first rule for successful debugging is to compile the code yourself. Of course you do not need to generate the byte code by hand; that's what the compiler is for. Compiling the code yourself means reading through the code you have written as though you were the compiler and making sure what the compiler sees matches what you intended.

<!--The second good debugging habit is to run the code yourself. Initialize the necessary variables to some typical values and step through the procedure in your mind. The server can catch simple errors, but only you know what the code is supposed to do, so only you can tell the difference between code which runs and code which actually works. After doing a typical case, also be sure to think through any exceptional cases which may occur. For example, with a loop, you should verify that the first and last iteration will operate as expected.-->

The second good debugging habit is to run the code yourself. Initialize the necessary variables to some typical values and step through the procedure in your mind. The server can catch simple errors, but only you know what the code is supposed to do, so only you can tell the difference between code which runs and code which actually works. After doing a typical case, also be sure to think through any exceptional cases which may occur. For example, with a loop, you should verify that the first and last iteration will operate as expected.

<!--After doing these pre-checks, it is, of course, vital to test the code for real. This is known as beating on the code. Don't be gentle. Treat it roughly to expose any unforeseen weaknesses. If it is code which responds to user input, try doing the usual things and then try things you wouldn't normally expect.

After doing these pre-checks, it is, of course, vital to test the code for real. This is known as beating on the code. Don't be gentle. Treat it roughly to expose any unforeseen weaknesses. If it is code which responds to user input, try doing the usual things and then try things you wouldn't normally expect.

Code which has passed these three tests will be reasonably sound. By catching bugs early, you save yourself a lot of trouble, because the code is fresh in your mind and therefore easier to decipher. Besides, you will find that deciphering bug reports from other users can be even harder!-->

===="Неуловимые" баги====

 

 

====Elusive Bugs====

Even when you have been careful, some subtle problems may still occasionally slip through. Hunting them down can be a frustrating experience, so it is good to have a few tricks up the sleeve.

Even when you have been careful, some subtle problems may still occasionally slip through. Hunting them down can be a frustrating experience, so it is good to have a few tricks up the sleeve.

There are two types of bugs: proc crashers and silent errors. Those that crash procs are the result of some exceptional case occurring. For example, the code might be trying to access an object's variable but the object reference is null. Allowing this sort of case to silently slide by (by pretending the variable of the non-existent object is null, for example) might be a convenient thing to do in some cases, but in others it might cover up a genuine error that needs to be corrected by the programmer. Crashing the procedure and reporting the problem therefore makes it much easier for you to discover the problem and find its source.

There are two types of bugs: proc crashers and silent errors. Those that crash procs are the result of some exceptional case occurring. For example, the code might be trying to access an object's variable but the object reference is null. Allowing this sort of case to silently slide by (by pretending the variable of the non-existent object is null, for example) might be a convenient thing to do in some cases, but in others it might cover up a genuine error that needs to be corrected by the programmer. Crashing the procedure and reporting the problem therefore makes it much easier for you to discover the problem and find its source.

When the procedure crashes, some diagnostic information is output to world.log. When running the world directly in the client, this information is displayed directly in the terminal window. With a stand-alone server, it is normally in the server's output but may be redirected to a file.

When the procedure crashes, some diagnostic information is output to world.log. When running the world directly in the client, this information is displayed directly in the terminal window. With a stand-alone server, it is normally in the server's output but may be redirected to a file.-->

The most important part of the diagnostic information is the name of the procedure that crashed. The value of the src and usr variables are also included. If there are any procedures in the call stack (that is, the procedure which called this one, and the procedure which in turn called it, and so on) these are displayed.

<!--The most important part of the diagnostic information is the name of the procedure that crashed. The value of the src and usr variables are also included. If there are any procedures in the call stack (that is, the procedure which called this one, and the procedure which in turn called it, and so on) these are displayed.

If this is not enough information for you to locate the source of the problem, try compiling the world with the DEBUG macro defined. This will add source file and line number information to the diagnostic output.

<!--If this is not enough information for you to locate the source of the problem, try compiling the world with the DEBUG macro defined. This will add source file and line number information to the diagnostic output.

One may also need to probe around in the code to see what is going on. This can be accomplished by sending your own diagnostic information to world.log. For example, you might to know the value of a variable at a particular point in the code. This could be done with a line like the following:

world.log << "[__LINE__]: myvar = [myvar]"

world.log << "[__LINE__]: myvar = [myvar]"

Отладка кода проводится как при отдельных случаях падения кода(и тогда удобнее пользоваться примерами приведёнными выше), так и по всем исполняемым строкам и файлам при финальной диагностике. В последнем случае вы можете пользоваться следующими макросами:

Sometimes debugging output such as this is simply removed after fixing the problem, but sometimes you may want diagnostic information to appear whenever you are testing the code. In this case, a macro such as the following may be useful.

<!--Sometimes debugging output such as this is simply removed after fixing the problem, but sometimes you may want diagnostic information to appear whenever you are testing the code. In this case, a macro such as the following may be useful.-->

: #ifdef DEBUG

: #ifdef DEBUG

: #define debug null

: #define debug null

: #endif

: #endif

Another tool for hunting bugs is to comment out code. This may be helpful when determining whether a certain piece of code is responsible for an observed problem. By simplifying the procedure and gradually disabling all but the code which causes the glitch, you can save yourself from scrutinizing a lot of irrelevant material.

 

<!--Another tool for hunting bugs is to comment out code. This may be helpful when determining whether a certain piece of code is responsible for an observed problem. By simplifying the procedure and gradually disabling all but the code which causes the glitch, you can save yourself from scrutinizing a lot of irrelevant material.

This is also essential when asking others for help. Nobody wants to read through pages and pages of somebody else's code. If you can't see the problem yourself but can isolate it down to a small piece of code, you will find it much easier (and fruitful) when getting help from other programmers. Sometimes just trying to clearly define the problem enables you to suddenly see the solution yourself--avoiding the embarrassment altogether.

This is also essential when asking others for help. Nobody wants to read through pages and pages of somebody else's code. If you can't see the problem yourself but can isolate it down to a small piece of code, you will find it much easier (and fruitful) when getting help from other programmers. Sometimes just trying to clearly define the problem enables you to suddenly see the solution yourself--avoiding the embarrassment altogether.-->