[REBOL] AW: Re: read ftp:// error
From: moeller_thorsten:gmx at: 31-May-2001 10:37
thanks for your detailed explanation what to do. I produced the file,
studied its working, and did some modification, mainly for data tracking.
But for some purposes, when i "do" the generated file as described, it
doesn't seem to have any effect.
Is there a way to verify that REBOL uses my scheme, not the standard one?
As well REBOL ask me for a header when doing the .../ftp_hack.r, so my file
has to look like this
make object! [
Bringing this task to a success, i will post a workaround to the list.
Von: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]Im Auftrag
von GS Jones
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2001 16:57
Betreff: [REBOL] Re: read ftp:// error
From: "Thorsten Moeller"
> Hi Scott,
> thanks for your offer. HP`s moth abbreviations wouldn't be the
> the server is just internal and running our ERP-System. So, it is not
> possible to give you even a secure access to it for demonstration.
> Perhaps you can give me some instructions what to do, or what you have
> mind, so i can put it together.
> Any results can be emailed off-list.
> Think about it !?
Yeah, best not to tinker too much with the multi-million
dollar/franc/pound/mark/xxxx ERP system!
This is my generic approach to hacking a scheme:
First, here is how to get your very own copy of the FTP scheme with
which to play.
To get a separate copy of the FTP scheme, type the following (changing
the path to an appropriate one):
Then, edit the file to remove the chevrons (">>") at the beginning and
end. Add "FTP:" as the very first line of the code so that it starts
make object! [
Save this file. This is your working copy of the to-be hacked FTP
scheme. After hacking, save the file, then with a fresh REBOL session,
which loads up the hacked ftp scheme. Then see the effects. Without
change, the routine should fail in the same way.
The first thing I would probably do at this point is verify where the
error is occurring. (I still don't see how a simple FTP read gets to
this code.) Search the FTP scheme for the word "to-date". There is only
one occurence and is inside the parse-files function's subfunction
add-date. You will notice a lot of action with a series 'pdate. I
would add some print request to figure out both the structure of pdate
and the values. For example:
add-date: func  [
month: first pdate
system/words/insert skip pdate 1 month
if (length? pdate) < 3 [
system/words/append pdate now/year
system/words/append pdate to-time time
loop length? loc: pdate [insert loc "/" loc: skip loc 2]
;added commands on the left for easy spotting
foreach pdate-part pdate [print pdate-part]
if (now + 1) < loc: to-date rejoin pdate [loc/year:
loc/year - 1]
system/words/append info-block loc
This example would accomplish two things: first find out about the pdate
series and to verify the potential point of failure in that this foreach
loop should execute shortly before failure.
If this is the point of failure and if pdate is indeed showing the
German(?) abbreviations for the months, then I would write a work-around
to-date function that is local to this scheme, only.
Of course, this exercise could lead in a number of directions, so there
is no way to anticipate the directions.
If you would like to share your results on or off list, that is fine
with me. At some point if you/we get a work-around, we out to "publish"
the result to the list so that the next poor soul will have an easier
What do you think?