Ninox is losing id of functions, am I taxing the app too much?
Ninox Profile

Firstly, this may be hard to explain.  I blasted off a note to support but wanted to ask here just in case.  I have an extensive set of functions in the global script, meant to create more undersandable formulas and references along with some complicated accounting routines.  All is generally working well, until recently.  Now, despite Ninox telling me the code in a formula is error-free, upon tapping OK the display value will be blank.  Going back in reveals an error message *before* entering formula editing view, that reveals Ninox cannot identify a function that is definitely valid.  If i replace that formula with a raw value (which the funciton would be returning), it works.

This seems like a creeping problem as now a second once-working formula is showing blank and reveals this yet another missing function error.  Seems like a systemic thing internal to Ninox.

Is this ringing bells for anyone else?

D

Do you have a function with the same name but different parameters? It is recommended that you not use the same name for different functions. If this is not your issues and does not fix it, we recommend you book a screen sharing session: https://calendly.com/ninoxenglish

 

-David

Ninox Profile

I often share function names with differing signature in xcode, but not in Ninox.  I currently have worked around this by duplicating the functionality at the UI and will redress this as time permits.  I noted a similar issue with two interconnected formulas and thought a race condition was manifesting but time and deadlines required the same kind of solution (dup'ing code).  drew..

Ninox Profile

@Drew, 

I have seen strange behaviors.. one of which was Ninox would never call my FIRST fuction .. I had to put a bogus one in.   No clue as to why.. and it would randomly repeat. 

 

While it may be documented somewhere.... There is a LIMIT on the code size...So if you sent that in to support.. they might be able to determine if it exceeds.. 

Reply