Disabling Error Messages

[pseigler]

is there a way to disable any error messages. say, for example, a panel was in kiosk mode and i didn't want pop up's from drivers disconnecting from their hosts, etc.

thanks

[Dean Roddey]

You can only do that by writing a CML macro and dealing with the errors yourself. But it's kind of dangerous to ignore errors since then either no one knows anything is wrong and so they don't get it fixed, or things just don't work and there's no particular indication to them as to why. In a correctly working system, you shouldn't be getting any anyway.

[pseigler]

got it. thanks

[jdmontague]

You can only do that by writing a CML macro and dealing with the errors yourself. But it's kind of dangerous to ignore errors since then either no one knows anything is wrong and so they don't get it fixed, or things just don't work and there's no particular indication to them as to why. In a correctly working system, you shouldn't be getting any anyway.

I agree that ignoring errors is bad, but popping them up to regular users (spouse/kids) is generally worse in my experience. I prefer to log the errors in as much detail as I can for the system administrator (me) to handle and just do very basic notification to the user if absolutely required. I have dealt with too many errors that got ignored, even though they were popped up, until things were trashed and a lot more work to clean up.

[Dean Roddey]

One thing I've been considering, since we have the pop up interface capability now, is providing an OnError event at the template level, so that you can handle errors yourself and pop up a template yourself that shows what you want. We have a specialized OnError for the static text widget that's used when the static text widget is used as a keypad input and then used to send the entered value. The error text is one of the runtime values available for use if you want to display the error.

Any specialized scenario like that would override any global one, but for more general errors, the ability to deal with them yourself would be very flexible. It would always get logged no matter what.

[pseigler]

that would be good.

the problem isn't really with drivers. but say, the CQC server is unavailable for some reason, etc. instead of the viewer poping up a message, it would be nice to simply keep them hidden, then review the logs later.

not a big deal, more of a "can it be done".

[wuench]

In playing with my driver and others. I think adding error handling to the IV is a big step forward.

It seems like rejecting field writes is a recommended/common practice in driver development, but I don't want, and I am sure integration partners don't want these types of things surfacing in the IV for thier customers in a plain CQC dialogs. An OnError state would be a great solution.

You might also want to consider allowing drivers to pass a descriptive explaination. So if I do a field reject in my driver I can explain why in the error. Then the interface designer wouldn't necessarily need to handle it but just put the text into the popup. I don't think the field was rejected by the driver is enough information for the end user and the interface designer/integrator shouldn't have to worry about all the possible driver errors. IMHO.