BT 1.05

[Pepo]

No torrent for 1.05 this time? Apparently not very useful because of small file size?

On one machine (Win 7, Avast AV free/Home), installation went fine.
On other machine 6 hours later (Win 7, Avast AV Pro) the AV complained about it being suspicious, that the BT_1.05.exe tries to start BT_1.05.tmp and whether I really want to allow it... Twice, for both BT_1.05.tmp files. But no complaints regarding any ill contents of the file.

Upon the first start on the second computer, BT 1.05 said I've 19 Notices, after switching to the tab it was empty and keeps empty. I suspect some inconsistency between my own notices templates and the update from BT 1.05, will investigate and report. On the first mentioned machine (without customized notices' templates), the Notices were displayed correctly, including their "+" and "x" marks.

[fred]

No torrent for 1.05 this time? Apparently not very useful because of small file size?

There are very few users and with 2 servers the availability is very high.
The old Notices template needs to be adjusted for the use of the collapse and delete feature.
Strange that the virus scanner is complaining, both the installer and all the exe's are secure and signed. And above all the installer is the same as before.

[Pepo]

Strange that the virus scanner is complaining, both the installer and all the exe's are secure and signed. And above all the installer is the same as before.

As I said, it did not complain about the file contents, but possibly the behavior (maybe executing a .tmp file? does the signature also contain the file name?).

Now I remember, the exact question was, whether I'd rather like to execute it in a sandbod, normally or not at all. This is probably the reason, why the first computer's AV did not complain - the free version does not contain a sandbox functionality. (I remember having seen this sandbox question once or twice in the last 10 days or so, but not any more the application name - possibly some BOINC task?)

[fred]

As I said, it did not complain about the file contents, but possibly the behavior (maybe executing a .tmp file? does the signature also contain the file name?).

It's the installer and I don't know exactly what's it ..... but it probably makes some temp to expand the setup file.
All exe are signed as is the setup.exe, that should normally be enough to call it trusted. It should prevent any form of tampering.

[Pepo]

As I said, it did not complain about the file contents, but possibly the behavior (maybe executing a .tmp file? does the signature also contain the file name?).

It's the installer and I don't know exactly what's it ..... but it probably makes some temp to expand the setup file.
All exe are signed as is the setup.exe, that should normally be enough to call it trusted. It should prevent any form of tampering.

I do not know...

The sequence I always see in the Process Explorer: the first instance of any BT n.nn installer (now 1.05) (running under my account, file "%HOMEPATH%\Downloads\BOINC\setup_32_64_boinc_tasks_1_0_5.exe") creates a child process by launching file e.g. "%LOCALAPPDATA%\Temp\is-IQIL5.tmp\setup_32_64_boinc_tasks_1_0_5.tmp" under my account (this is the point where the AV complains for the first time "You are opening an app, which might be dangerous. We recommend opening it in a sandbox...") - I believe this one is launching an UAC request.

Afterwards the "%HOMEPATH%\Downloads\BOINC\setup_32_64_boinc_tasks_1_0_5.exe" will be executed again, under an admin's account, which in turn creates a child process by launching file e.g. "%LOCALAPPDATA%\Temp\is-EDG0V.tmp\setup_32_64_boinc_tasks_1_0_5.tmp" (in the admin's %LOCALAPPDATA% folder tree) again under the admin's account (this is the point where the AV complains for the second time) - I believe this is the final installer. Both processes' current dir is "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\"

I've compared these two .tmp files - they are binary identical (uploaded to SK). After renaming it to .exe and launching it, the AV complains again the identical way. The file does not contain any signature, just the parent installer envelope. It just complains:
---------------------------
Error: The file setup_32_64_boinc_tasks_1_0_5.tmp-0.bin is missing from the installation directory. Please correct the problem or obtain a new copy of the program.
---------------------------
I could not find the .bin data file, but this is not important anymore.

No solution idea on my side. I know that the installation always proceeded like this, possibly just the AV team added some new heuristics...

[fred]

No solution idea on my side. I know that the installation always proceeded like this, possibly just the AV team added some new heuristics...

I updated the installer, maybe that does something for the next release.

[Pepo]

Again the nasty hidden bug with incorrect times, while an active task does not run. This time I've noticed it immediately because of the -23.198% progress (nothing wrong with correctly displaying an eventually incorrect value) and and the progress bar going to the left of the Progress% column (not so correct). (Screenshots at hand. I've suspended this task.)

App=6.52 QCN Sensor (nci)   Name=qcnac_097909_0   Elapsed(CPU)=05:07:18 (00:00:28)   Progress%=-23.198   Remaining= "-"   Deadline=01d,22:43:43

WU name   qcnac_097909
Received   26.05.11 23:32
CPU time at last checkpoint   00:00:28
CPU time   00:00:28
Elapsed time   05:07:18
Remaining time estimate   -01d,03:11:58
Finished part   0.000 %

<active_task>
    <project_master_url>http://qcn.stanford.edu/sensor/</project_master_url>
    <result_name>qcnac_097909_0</result_name>
    <active_task_state>0</active_task_state>
    <checkpoint_cpu_time>28.626190</checkpoint_cpu_time>
    <checkpoint_elapsed_time>212006.004143</checkpoint_elapsed_time>
    <checkpoint_fraction_done>0.000000</checkpoint_fraction_done>
    <checkpoint_fraction_done_elapsed_time>0.000000</checkpoint_fraction_done_elapsed_time>
    <current_cpu_time>28.626190</current_cpu_time>
</active_task>

App=6.52 QCN Sensor (nci)   Name=qcnac_097909_0   Elapsed(CPU)=58:53:26   Progress=0.000%   Remaining= "---"   Deadline=9.6.2011 23:32:15

WU name   qcnac_097909
Received   26.05.11 23:32:17
CPU time at last checkpoint   00:00:28
CPU time   00:00:28
Elapsed time   58:53:26
Remaining time estimate   ---
Finished part   0.000 %

Could I somehow help with localizing the reason for the wrong times' bug?

[fred]

Again the nasty hidden bug with incorrect times, while an active task does not run. This time I've noticed it immediately because of the -23.198% progress (nothing wrong with correctly displaying an eventually incorrect value) and and the progress bar going to the left of the Progress% column (not so correct). (Screenshots at hand. I've suspended this task.)
Could I somehow help with localizing the reason for the wrong times' bug?

I will do a check and a partial rewrite for 1.06, if nothing helps, I will add some debugging options.

[fred]

Could I somehow help with localizing the reason for the wrong times' bug?

When running:

dElapsed = pResult->elapsed_time;
dCurrentCpuTime = pResult->current_cpu_time;

When not running:

if (pResult->final_elapsed_time > 0)
{
   dElapsed = pResult->final_elapsed_time;     <-- this is probably where it goes wrong.
}
else
{
   dElapsed = pResult->elapsed_time;
}

I will add this:

if (pResult->active_task)
{
   dElapsed = pResult->elapsed_time;     <-- takes the elapsed_time
   dCurrentCpuTime = pResult->current_cpu_time;
}
else
do the above

I corrected the elapsed time for the tasks tab as well.

[Pepo]

(I remember having seen this sandbox question once or twice in the last 10 days or so, but not any more the application name - possibly some BOINC task?)

Today I've got this sandbox question for dnetc_2.02_windows_intelx86.exe. Then I've allowed its normal execution and checked the executable - it was confirmed virus-free.
The avast AV is either getting over-careful, or implements some new security mode "complaining-prior-to-testing"?

[Pepo]

I'm using my own modified notices_template.html, which also makes use of __InsertNoticeTimeArrival__. Now it seems like both __InsertNoticeTimeArrival__ and __InsertNoticeTimeCreated__ are not being expanded (i.e. they are converted to empty string), when a notice is in a collapsed state. I wanted to display their times also in this state.

Could they please be expanded regardless of their state?

[fred]

I'm using my own modified notices_template.html, which also makes use of __InsertNoticeTimeArrival__. Now it seems like both __InsertNoticeTimeArrival__ and __InsertNoticeTimeCreated__ are not being expanded (i.e. they are converted to empty string), when a notice is in a collapsed state. I wanted to display their times also in this state.

Could they please be expanded regardless of their state?

I should expand the time as it's shown in the default template.
Check the created html file to see what has happened to the time.
can you email the file, I will take a look at it.

[Pepo]

[...] it seems like both __InsertNoticeTimeArrival__ and __InsertNoticeTimeCreated__ are not being expanded (i.e. they are converted to empty string), when a notice is in a collapsed state. I wanted to display their times also in this state. Could they please be expanded regardless of their state?

I should expand the time as it's shown in the default template.
Check the created html file to see what has happened to the time.
can you email the file, I will take a look at it.

The places where the times should appear are simply empty. I'll send you the template and resulting file.

Possibly the same with the "more..." link element __InsertNoticeMoreLink__ - could it be expanded in a collapsed state, if placed outside of the notice body?

BTW, the red "delete notice" icon is prefixed with blue underscore (which both belong to the same delete link): "_{_}[x]". Is the tiny underscore necessary there?

[fred]

The places where the times should appear are simply empty. I'll send you the template and resulting file.

Possibly the same with the "more..." link element __InsertNoticeMoreLink__ - could it be expanded in a collapsed state, if placed outside of the notice body?

BTW, the red "delete notice" icon is prefixed with blue underscore (which both belong to the same delete link): "_{_}[x]". Is the tiny underscore necessary there?

I have no idea where the partial square comes from, it's not in the picture as far as I can see. It looks like the rectangle that is set to 0.

[fred]

In 1.06 I create 2 separate bodies, one normal and the other collapsed. This will make customizing a lot easier.
And I borrowed some of your ideas....