PB12.5: sending keystrokes to IE OLEObject using keybd_event function/subroutine - sybase

In the program I am writing, I created an OLEObject to connect to a webpage in Internet Explorer that results in an automatic pop-up prompting me for my credentials.
I've been trying to avoid having to switch tabs and manually click OK by instead sending the "ENTER" keystroke to the window using Sybase's keybd_event subroutine : http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=47760
I declared the subroutine as an External Global Function and added the code where it was needed. The interesting thing is is that the program successfully presses the OK button in the pop-up window when I step through each line in debugger mode, but it fails to do so when I compile and run it.
Could anyone give any suggestions as to how to fix this? Or perhaps propose an alternative method entirely?
Thanks!

I'm not clear if you are using the built in Inet, InternetResult, InternetData objects in PB, but if you are I think you use the PostURL to do something like that. Then use the GetUrl to read a webpage into the Inet object. It's been a long time since I've used this, apologize if this leads you down the wrong path.

Related

Choregraphe: How can I turn on NAO's Brain LEDs through qichat?

Using a "Dialog"-box (so a .top file too), how can i turn NAO's brain leds on? I know that you can call an output like "$turnledson=1" and connect it to "Set Leds"-box and turn the leds on that way, but what about a command that can activate them without the need of another box from choregraphe? Something like "^start(animations/LEDs/BrainLedsOn)", if it exists.
There is no direct LED commands in QiChat.
However, if in your app myapp you create a new behavior called brain/anim1 (with a box in it!), and you make sure it is exposed (checked in the project properties), you can use ^start(myapp/brain/anim1) to start your Choregraphe behavior within your QiChat code.
But as you can see, you need to use a Choregraphe box somewhere in the end.

xcb window manager loses all key grabs

I have an unrepeatable bug of unknown origin in my single threaded window manager that occurs fairly infrequently (once every 2-3 weeks). Something happens that causes me to lose keyboard input. Mouse events are still handled properly so I know the event loop is still running, but the key press event is no longer triggered. Actually, the key is no longer grabbed. When I press XCB_MOD_MASK_4+2 to switch to desktop 2, the 2 will show up in the text editor or terminal that currently has the input focus, instead of being grabbed by the window manager. I thought maybe it was related to xcb_allow_events, so via IPC I can execute these three tests (from within the window manager, cmd is received from an external process):
if (strcmp(cmd,"test0")==0)
xcb_allow_events(wm.conn, XCB_ALLOW_ASYNC_KEYBOARD, XCB_CURRENT_TIME);
else if (strcmp(cmd,"test1")==0)
xcb_allow_events(wm.conn, XCB_ALLOW_SYNC_KEYBOARD, XCB_CURRENT_TIME);
else if (strcmp(cmd,"test2")==0)
keyboard();
void keyboard()
{
int i,m,k;
xcb_void_cookie_t cookie;
spawn("/usr/bin/xmodmap -e 'keycode 108 = Super_L'");
spawn("/usr/bin/xmodmap -e 'remove mod1 = Super_L'");
for (i=0; i<LENGTH(key_bindings); i++)
{
m = key_bindings[i].mod;
k = keysc(key_bindings[i].keysym);
info("grabbing key: %s (%d), mod: %d",key_bindings[i].keysym,k,m);
cookie = xcb_grab_key_checked(wm.conn, 0, wm.root, m, k, XCB_GRAB_MODE_ASYNC, XCB_GRAB_MODE_ASYNC);
if (xcb_request_check (wm.conn, cookie))
error("can't grab key");
}
}
None of these tests help. I know the keyboard function works properly because it works on window manager startup. Also I can see in the log file that the key grabs in the keyboard function are actually being executed (without error) when prompted via IPC. The current workaround is to send sigterm to the window manager process, and then restart the wm. At that point everything works fine again.
I'm looking for techniques that might be helpful in tracking down the source of this problem, or in correcting the problem once it occurs (another test). Unfortunately, since I have no clue of the source of this problem, or what triggers it, I cannot make a simple test case to demonstrate. BTW I check the log files when this happens, and I don't see any pattern leading up to the problem. Each function logs an entry on entrance and exit.
Update 2021-02-12: I thought a restart would be a good workaround until I found the root cause of this problem. My restart function contains only one line:
execvp(lwm_argv[0], lwm_argv);
where lwm_argv is the argv provided as an argument to main.
I was very surprised to see that this did not alleviate the problem. I have to completely kill the old process then launch an new one to alleviate the problem. So this problem is PID dependant??? Further, I'm fairly convinced that this problem is somehow related to the stdout/stderr output of other applications launched from within the window manager using execvp. I've stopped launching applications from within the window manager and the problem went away. Any ideas of how launching other applications (and their output) could be affecting the keygrabs within the window manager would be appreciated.
You could try using strace or perf trace on the X server to see what it is doing with the key events. It ought to read them from somewhere in /dev/input and send them as events to connected clients.
If it isn't sending you events, then you might need to dig into its internal state, perhaps by building a debug server and connecting to it with GDB, to see why it isn't sending those events.
But if it is sending events to your WM then they're getting lost somewhere in the library stack.

How do I find the context in which document.write operates. Can you solve the riddle

Basically i have these two lines of code written right after each other.:
console.log(typeof (noAdsCallback));
document.write('<sc' + 'ript type="text/javascript">console.log(typeof(noAdsCallback));</scr' + 'ipt>');
The first one logs function, the second logs undefined.
Of course it's a bit trickier than that. So here is the set-up in a nutshell:
I have a so called waterfall of ad-providers. That means, I try to load some Ads, by writing (using document.write) some special tags (given to me by my ad-provider).
If the provider doesn't find an ad for me, they send back a javascript-snippet which looks like this:
if (typeof(window.noAdsCallback) === "function") noAdsCallback();
This function essentially writes the tags of the next provider, which does the same as the first one until I reach the end of the list.
This system actually works fine, doing exactly what I want it to do. Both lines given in the beginning log function.
Except if I use Google as an ad-provider. There is one thing Google does differently, which seems to mess everything up.
In Google, I cannot define a fallback-JavaScript-snippet. All I can do is provide a fallback-url. So this fallback-url (since it's loaded inside an iframe inside an iframe inside...) sends a postMessage to the top, which then calls the same noAdsCallback() method. And this too, works just fine. The message is received and the right method executed. However, already the two lines already give different results, i.e. function and undefined respectively
The next provider then fails to find the noAdsCallback() Method, when it returns, because it uses document.write to try to execute it. Somehow, the context was lost.
First hint: It works fine (i.e. both lines log function) in Chrome, but it doesn't work in FF or IE.
Second hint: It works fine, as long as context never switches, but if communication runs at any point through messaging, it get's confused.
Third hint: Using the fantastic postscribe library as mentioned below, actually solves the problem, but introduces new ones somewhere else.
Fourth hint: Debugging the window.name, before using document.write, gives the correct name, so I'm not in a random iFrame.
Finishing thoughts. I know, i know: DON'T USE DOCUMENT WRITE!! I know that. But since Adproviders use it all the time, I am forced to use it to, otherwise I get this:
Failed to execute 'write' on 'Document': It isn't possible to write into a document from an asynchronously-loaded external script unless it is explicitly opened.
In Fact, right now I'm using postscribe (https://github.com/krux/postscribe) and it works like a charm, except for one lousey provider. And the workauround solution would be, to use document.write only for this lousy provider and postscribe for all the others. But i would really like to find out what the root of the problem is.
Any Ideas, much appreciated.
I think I understood it now. Long story short: DON'T USE DOCUMENT.WRITE :)
Try postscribe, if you have to.
So in hindsight it is quite obvious, because really, anywhere you read about document.write() it says, that write() clears the whole document. And I just didn't get it, because I never saw it happening and every ad is using it, like the whole time. Plus, it seemed to work fine on Chrome. So what's going on??
Well here is what happens. As long as the document is open, which basically means while it is being written, document.write() just appends to the stream, and doesn't clear the document. And as long as I used document.write(), to append foreign ad-scripts (which may and will contain document.write()), the page does not close, hence the document stays open.
This is the reason, why adding Google to my waterfall, posed a problem: Google puts everything in iframes. So the page containing the waterfall model just sees the iframe and says: "well as far as I'm concerned, I'm done" and closes the document, while in fact, Google is still at it.
Afterwards, Google didn't find an ad, sends a postMessage to the main page, causing the next provider to be used. Who then uses document.write() and clears everything.
Everything? Not everything. Remember, it still used to work when I used Chrome? The reason for that is, Chrome just clears the HTML but leaves the Javascript intact. So on Chrome, my Javascript-waterfall worked fine, because all the JS-objects where still in place. All other browsers cleared it.
So that's it. Probably noone's gonna read it, but if you do, USE POSTSCRIBE! Now that I finally really understood document.write() and document.open() and document.close() I'm a big fan.

Create Console like Progress Window

I am replacing many batch files, that do almost the exact same thing, with one WPF executable. I have the program written, but I am having troubles with my "console" like display.
Within the program I call an executable to perform a task. This executable sends it's output messages to the console. I am able to redirect those to my "console" like display with the following.
Process p = new Process();
p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true;
p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardError = true;
p.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false;
p.StartInfo.CreateNoWindow = true;
p.StartInfo.FileName = MyExecutable;
p.StartInfo.Arguments = MyArguments;
p.Start();
while (!p.StandardOutput.EndOfStream)
{
string _output = p.StandardOutput.ReadLine();
// This is my display string ObservableCollection
_displayString.Add(new DisplayData { _string = _output, _color = System.Windows.Media.Brushes.Black, _fontSize = 12 });
// This is to redirect to a Console & what I want to get rid of
Console.WriteLine(_output);
}
p.WaitForExit();
When the executable is done running I use a MessageBox to ask the user if they want to run the executable again. The problem is that when the MessageBox is up the user is unable to scroll on my "console" like window to make an informative decision. To temporarily work around this I launch a console at start up, see this, and write the output stream from the process running the executable to the console so the user can scroll through the information and make a decision.
I am using a listbox to display a collection of textblocks, see this. I am not attached to anything for making the display, or MessageBox'es.
How can I make a "console" like display that will take a user input (MessageBox, direct input, etc...), but also allow them to scroll through the data before they make their decision?
EDIT:
As to the comments I have been receiving I am not clear on what I am trying to accomplish. I have a batch file that runs a executable multiple times with different arguments per run. There is a lot of setup before and between the executable calls. I have created an executable to replace many flavors of a similar batch file with drop down menus for the user to change settings at run time. When the user likes their settings they click a "Start" button, and away it goes doing setups and prompting questions as it goes and then finally runs executable for the first time.
My issue is when the called executable, inside mine, is done running the user needs to decide if they want to run it again for different reasons. I need to prompt the user "Run again - 'Yes' or 'No'?", and that is where I am running into problems. A MessageBox doesn't allow me to scroll on my Progress Window. I have tried a Modeless dialog box, but with Show() the program continues on, and ShowDialog() is the same issue as the MessageBox.
Any suggestions on how to do this would be appreciated.
You are in Windows, but trying to use DOS paradigm. Windows is event-based system! You need to write "event handlers" but not put all your code in one function.
However, there is a trick, which allows to show Modal (read "blocking your code") dialog in Modeless (read "not blocking your window"). Not sure how to implement this in WPF, but idea is to re-enable your window (which acts as parent for your dialog). You need to do this in your dialog event handler (WM_INITDIALOG equivalent?).
Also (in WinAPI) you may run dialog with NULL as parent window.

What are the exit codes used by RASPHONE.exe?

Due to a major time constraint, need to stick with invoking rasphone.exe from my c program, rather than best approach of using RAS API's. From my code, when the rasphone pop's up a dialler window to the user, if the user click's on cancel button, i have to stop blocking another set of code.
Ultimately, i need to handle the rasphone returns to control my code flow based on the Success/Failure-Cancel. How to do this? Also, is there any other possibility for silent dialling without any popup?I hope no, as its discussed.

Resources