Wayne,
I am still busy at work finding wonderful ways to break your code. I noticed this earlier on my trip the last couple weeks but then it did not show up again until the end. I just now got a chance to play with it a bit.
With version 1.32 I have noticed that some caches call the %macro= file and some don't. This results in some caches not having the prefix number and some do. This sort of defeats the purpose of the prefix number. I don't see a pattern, but there may be one but I'm just missing it.
Version 1.24 works correctly and the problem caches have the correct prefix numbers.
I've sent a email to your net <dot> au email containing a small (four cache) database, my .xml option file and my prefix macro.
Jim
Edit: I tried %caches_usersort but that fails on the same caches as %macro does. Version 1.24 works, version 1.32 does not.
I am still busy at work finding wonderful ways to break your code. I noticed this earlier on my trip the last couple weeks but then it did not show up again until the end. I just now got a chance to play with it a bit.
With version 1.32 I have noticed that some caches call the %macro= file and some don't. This results in some caches not having the prefix number and some do. This sort of defeats the purpose of the prefix number. I don't see a pattern, but there may be one but I'm just missing it.
Version 1.24 works correctly and the problem caches have the correct prefix numbers.
I've sent a email to your net <dot> au email containing a small (four cache) database, my .xml option file and my prefix macro.
Jim
Edit: I tried %caches_usersort but that fails on the same caches as %macro does. Version 1.24 works, version 1.32 does not.