Run and RunWithNewResults

Hi,

i have the following set up

RunWithNewResults "master"

RunWithNewResults "exit"

//In master script

subscript1
subscript2

when subscript1 failes ,the controls goes to exit script.
I want subscript 2 to execute.I dnt want to create a new result file for subscripts.these results should come with master scripts results.i dont want to use runwithnewresults command,as it will create a new result file for all the subscripts.using Run command doesnt seem to work.Any other option?

Thanks for ur replies

Comments

  • EggplantMattEggplantMatt ForumAdmin admin
    If you want the results of subScript2 to be logged with the output of subscript2, then you'll want to modify master.script to look like this:
    try
         // current contents of master script
    catch
         //if the master script code fails at any point, execution resumes here
         subScript2
    end try
    
    If the output of script2 doesn't matter that much, then you can do this:
    runWithNewResults "Master"
    put the result into outcome
    if the status of outcome is "Failure" then
         subScript2
    end if
    
    I hope one of these options will work for you.
  • Thanks for the reply,
    I already have this try and catch block.But the problem is :

    If a script calls multiple subscripts then having try n catch for each subscript will increase the number of lines of code.

    RunWithNewResults a;

    //Inside a

    try
    run a.1
    run a.2
    run a.3
    catch
    //error if a.1 fails ,then execute a.2 .if a.2 fails run a.3 //dnt want to do this way
    end try

    2nd option:

    try
    run a.1
    catch
    error
    end try

    try
    run a.2
    catch
    error
    end try

    try
    run a.3
    catch
    error
    end try

    Dont think any of the above mentioned options will be useful.
    only way is to use RunwithNewResults??

    The only intention is not to create a new result file for every subscript.
  • EggplantMattEggplantMatt ForumAdmin admin
    Why do you have an issue with how many lines of code there are? The second option seems to cover what you're asking for. Why is it not useful?
  • yes it will work but i was looking for more efficient code.

    thanks
  • SenseTalkDougSenseTalkDoug ForumAdmin admin
    Perhaps a little handler to do the try/catch for you will make it more to your liking:
    to tryRunning scriptName
      try 
        run scriptName
      catch 
        logError "Error running script " & scriptName & ": " & the exception
      end try 
    end tryRunning
    
    Then your main script will look more like this:
    tryRunning a.1
    tryRunning a.2
    tryRunning a.3
    
Sign In or Register to comment.