Zero Credit and PPD

[carlos....@gmail.com]

I "Download Projects From Stanford" regularly, but Credit and PPD are often zeroed.

The same problem happens on "Work Unit History", lots of values are missing:

• Unknown: Work Unit Name, Slot Type, Core Name
• Zeroed: KFactor, PPD, Credit, Atoms

Two screenshots are attached.

Any help is appreciated.

Thank you!

[toTOW]

There are two workarounds available on the FoldingForum.org to address this issue until we hear from harlam :

- manually maintained psummary : https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=28372
- patched version of HFM : https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=282041#p282041

[carlos....@gmail.com]

I will use the 'manually maintained psummary' workaround, it's easier to do. I just hope you won't forget to update it.

Thank you very much for your reply! I thought something was wrong on my end...

[harlam357]

toTOW - There is a new v0.9.5 build of HFM.NET available for testing.. This fixes the current issues with missing, incorrect project data.  Please test.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8d5F59S5sCiS1RISzdsaEd5UXM

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hfm-net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hfm-net+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hfm-net?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hfm-net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hfm-net+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[harlam357]

Carlos - There is a new v0.9.5 build of HFM.NET available for testing.. This fixes the current issues with missing, incorrect project data.  Please test.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8d5F59S5sCiS1RISzdsaEd5UXM

--

[da...@coton.me.uk]

How to install? I copied the zip contents to HFM.net and just broke HFM!

[da...@coton.me.uk]

I shpould add I was copying over 9.4.0 from toTOW.

[harlam357]

Then idk... not a configuration I'm going to support.  If you're using a zip installation then I suggest you delete everything from that folder and unzip clean from the v0.9.5 zip file.

[rhavern]

I've installed and it appears to be working as expected.  Is there any difference in URL for normal versus beta pages in the new scheme?

[toTOW]

I agree with harlam, my version is fully unsupported since it doesn't store the preference files at the same place as harlam's version. You'll find some talks about it in this post (and the follwing) : https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=282137#p282137

So going back to harlam's 0.9.5 will probably require moving around some files maually again ...

[da...@coton.me.uk]

Just to confirm: I changed back to 0.9.3 (just switched to the backup directory) and installed 0.9.5 over that, no issues.

[carlos....@gmail.com]

Every time I click on "Download Projects From Stanford" the same result is displayed:

Project: 9201 - Changed / ServerIP - 171.67.108.53 > 171.67.108.52
Project: 9201 - Changed / ServerIP - 171.67.108.52 > 171.67.108.53

In fact, on the official projects summary, there really are two projects with number 9201.

[DrBB1]

I don't know if this makes sense, but while I have been waiting for more beta test results on  v.0.9.5, I went into the Work Unit History view and saw 20-30 WUs with zero points, similar to Carlos's screenshot in his original post. When I clicked on "Tools > Refresh Project Data > All," all the zero-point project entries updated. Several time previously, and consistent with Carlos's experience, clicking "Tools > Download Projects from Stanford" from the main HFM.Net screen had not successfully update the zero-point projects in the WU Viewer. I'll leave it to those of you who may understand the inner workings of the software to explain what seems to be going on.

[harlam357]

Not to my knowledge.  All projects should be available via the JSON feed.  Please let me know if you find otherwise.

[harlam357]

That's correct.  If you want to help me and do some digging... find out if this is a correctly reported configuration.  The only difference is the IP.  Is this an error or is the project actually served up by multiple IP addresses?  If the latter, I can make some adjustments to account for this.  However, it's not high priority because it's a purely cosmetic issue. That IP is used only for informational purposes in the Benchmark Viewer. 

--

[carlos....@gmail.com]

I've already posted about this problem on the official forum:
https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9903&sid=8c215be84e188bbe7e553ee6024510da&start=585#p283104

The answer wasn't conclusive, though.

[harlam357]

You're on track... executing a Download Projects from Stanford will not effect the data in the WU History database.  That's by design.  The data for the WU is actually captured by the database as it was known when the WU completed.  If it's Unknown it remains Unknown.  If it's an older WU that has since had its point value changed, for example, then the WU History will reflect the point value of the WU when it was completed, not the new point value.  After all, Stanford doesn't adjust the points for your completed WU when they change the point value.  Neither does HFM.

Running a Refresh > All will effectively replace all WU data in the database with current WU data.  The safest Refresh option is Unknown.  It will only touch projects that had no project data available when the WU was completed.

I know all these things documented... I'm looking for volunteers to help me with that endevour. :-)

[carlos....@gmail.com]

I learned the "Tools --> Refresh Project Data --> Unknown" trick recently, a few posts above on this topic. It worked perfectly, but now I don't know which WUs were filled now and which were filled when the WUs completed. In short, I miss a timestamp column with the "Last Updated" header.  ;)

I got a reply on the forum (link on my previous post), it says the psummary is correct with the 2 equal projects. Very weird.

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 12:37:34 AM UTC-2, carlos....@gmail.com wrote:

[harlam357]

Regarding the "Last Updated"... does it matter?  Once it's updated the old data is gone.  That's why there's a big nag note asking you if this is really what you want to do.  In general, one shouldn't need to run this option much... it's a tool to be used in specific cases.  I probably shouldn't even have the option there to refresh the WU information in the whole database... not really useful from a history perspective.

--

[carlos....@gmail.com]

In my opinion, that's what the "Last Updated" column is for: you'll be able to know which WUs were changed every time you issue a command to fill in the blanks, so you'll know that that data might be imprecise. As you said, this command should be run very rarely, but I don't think that you should discard something just because you rarely use it. Try to open a can without a can opener, it's a nightmare.