|
Where's that upvote button when you need it 
|
|
|
|
|
The "tracking #" can be generated at any time the "shipping label" is "created" (which requires a call to the carrier's "label" / postage service).
In the case of USPS, the shipper may contract a 3rd party postage service; which has to communicate with USPS on the client's behalf. The "discounter" in this case, are the extra "hops" that cause timing issues. Later on, the client may need to interact with USPS directly since the 3rd party may not offer all the "query" services (like "tracking"!).
Usually, there is at least one event (somewhere): Shipping label created.
BTW, tracking #'s are reused after a period of time (at least for some carriers).
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
modified 22-Jun-17 13:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I had a guitar stolen off of a UPS truck in transit from the factory to the depot. (I actually think it was someone in the depot but that is another story) But the tracking label tracked it half way to my home from factory then it show as not being scanned yet (according to the UPS agent investigating). They finally fessed up and said that it had been 'Stolen off the truck'.
The factory replaced it, and I got my guitar (how be it not the same guitar) but I still think this was an inside job.
|
|
|
|
|
If you look at the details, it probably says that the label was printed.
The package was not picked up yet.
On the other hand, I got one of these AFTER calling to complain my package was not here.
I screenshotted it with the date/time as PROOF they dropped the ball.
But they should be clear. That the label was generated, and they have no idea where the package is!
|
|
|
|
|
I was able to understand the tutorial after figuring out I need to look at the black and yellow sections at the same time. Otherwise I would have been lost if I didn't know php. Also a desc is needed to get to know what is used in the tables.. Also I needed to find table information. You could also explain table row and column information from the user database profile if a user doesn't know anything about database. This would help greatly! I would have also like the information as just file information. For example the index.php then the code display like this <?php echo the php code here which shows the php code disabled in textarea
<?php
echo "hello world!";
?>
</pre> just passing my
?>knowledge to you. Also you could of put downloads for each file used for your forum code and show it in text so people can copy it to a editor so it could be downloaded unless I missed it. You seem to assume people know how to use your tutorial and they can get confused. The code project is good except it assumes peoples knowledge too much of how to understand the php code project.
A file then he code will help instead. Since keeping all this stuff in memory is overwhelming!
Sincerely,
William Dunlap, The problem is people don't kiss stuff - keep it simple when coding! This make it easyier and makes it nicer to understand when programming industry and development.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 13266084 wrote: You seem to assume people know how to use your tutorial and they can get confused.
Who are you addressing this to?
If you have a problem with a particular article, you should use the forum at the bottom of the article to discuss it with the author.
The chances of the author randomly stumbling across your post here, and realising that it's about their article, are slim to none.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that w3school tutorials are not always clear and also it would be more helpful to have a possibility to try to solve a problem on each rule instead of just watching how the code act.
Cheers,
paper writer,
programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday, I got called onto a remote with a customer where some really crazy things are happening with one of our executables.
Starting this particular exe manually causes a command window to pop up and quickly disappear. The exe is deleted without any warning...just gone!
OK, so that's weird, but weirder still is the fact that when the exe is started from our main program, (normal) the main program gets shut down immediately and the main program executable gets deleted! In this case, the called exe is not deleted. 
Some troubleshooting revealed that the same file renamed, would run without a problem. 
It looks live an anti-virus problem, but the only a/v showing in the taskbar is windows MSE and I know that I don't have a problem with it. Also, I find it hard to believe that an a/v would rely on filename alone...besides, the same filename with 'test' appended works fine. (btw, the files in question are digitally signed...if that matters)
The customer's tech guy has no clue. Once he saw that it would work after renaming, he announced that his job was done. 
To be continued...
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen Norton do this on my wife's machine.
It can really be annoying and difficult to make Norton stop it.
I wrote an app for my wife and Norton deletes it every time you start it.
And, it's difficult to find the place in Norton to tell Norton that the exe is safe.
And, I've even marked it as safe and then Norton decided to delete it again. 
Finally got it. But it's annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it called "Program.exe"?
(Because most AV identify this name as a virus attempt and just delete it - it is due to the directory \Program Files\ having a space in the name and some dodgyness in the shell command IIRC)
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: Is it called "Program.exe"?
No, but thanks. I'll have to try that some time. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's the new iOS feature that deletes apps when you are running low on space?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't sound familiar, but I've had Stored Procedures disappear from SQL Server before.
|
|
|
|
|
Beacause it will surely work a 100% the second time 
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(query,conn);
SqlDataReader reader = null;
try
{
reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
}
catch(InvalidOperationException e)
{
cmd = new SqlCommand(query,conn);
reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
}
|
|
|
|
|
Really should be in a loop 42 times! 42 times always work out nicely! 
|
|
|
|
|
What about a recursive method that runs until it works? That should "fix it"
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget to put in an
Thread.Sleep(500) to give the database connection a chance to recover from the failure state.
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen and written code like that.
One time there was a bug in a big ass Oracle procedure that made it return no records on the first try, but did the right thing after that (don't know what it was, we're talking about 100's of lines of Oracle code, a horror in its own right!).
Once had an issue with a rather unstable connection that often made it fail the first time.
Same thing for timeouts. Timeout on first try, instant result on the second try.
While retrying isn't really a solution it may get the desired result with very few trouble.
Especially useful when it has to work NOW and the real issue is not so easy to fix (or not yours to fix).
|
|
|
|
|
Besides the problem of repeating the same thing inside a catch, the other big problem is that the second time also throws an error sometimes. The "easy" fix was to put another try and catch block inside that catch, until I could understand what the hell was happening in that code
|
|
|
|
|
This calls for a do-while! xD
bool failure = true;
do
{
try
{
failure = false;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
failure = true;
}
} while (failure);
|
|
|
|
|
See Einstein's definition of insanity.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think this counts, because they are EXPECTING different results once they have an exception...
|
|
|
|
|
Einstein never used a (modern) computer.
|
|
|
|
|
Two minor points here:
1. Einstein was a physicist, not a psychologist or psychiatrist. Being a genius in one field does not necessarily qualify you to speak with authority in any other.
2. He never said it anyway. At least he seems to have been smart enough to know (1).
(Quora[^])
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
