Re: [Rails-devel] Fixed StockRound bug

[Mark S. <mar...@gm...>]

Hmmm... it must have been the Puppy... I re-checked and found I had updated
the code but not rebuilt it. It does operate properly. Sorry for the
mis-report.

Mark

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Mark Smith <mar...@gm...> wrote:

> I ran through a quick test on 1830, and it sets the price, but throws the
> same NULL Pointer on the same line. And after that there are still no
> available shares to be bought in the Stock Round Window.
>
> So the fix did not resolve the problem entirely. (there may be another NULL
> Pointer being thrown). I would point it out to you, but a Puppy on my lap is
> keeping me from proper debugging mode.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@hc...> wrote:
>
>>  Note in the PublicCompany Class, the routine to get the ParPrice, and
>> hasParPrice are checking the boolean flag 'hasParPrice. What I really don't
>> understand is why have this boolean at all? If the company has a Par Price,
>> the variable 'parPrice' will NOT be null.
>>
>> hasParPrice is a static (not in the java sense) game parameter, set at
>> game loading time. It only means: there is a par price that is not
>> necessarily equal to the current price. This price does not need to have
>> been set yet. One use of hasParPrice is to create an extra"ParPrice" column
>> in the Game status, which is absent in games like 1851 that do not have a
>> separate par price.
>>
>> parPrice is 0 until a price has been set.
>>
>>
>>  If it is null, than there is no Par Price. Now, if you are trying to use
>> the boolean hasParPrice to indicate that the Company is available for
>> purchase, then it should be named 'availableForPurchase'. This way you can
>> have a "Fixed" Par Price set before you can actually buy the stock.
>>
>> Yes, but that it not what it means.
>>
>> But your "fix" to change line 178 to 'if (comp.getParPrice() != null) {'
>> moves the test from the PublicCompany Class back out to the setBuyableCerts
>> Class which I feel is not right right way to fix it. If you have the
>> 'hasParPrice' routine perform the test instead it would be a better
>> solution.
>>
>> Perhaps we need a extra method hasAPriceBeenSet or such. We'll see.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>