VersionCheckNew testing

Afrow UK
22nd March 2005 19:28 UTC

VersionCheckNew testing
I've tried and tested the function so many times, but there's always one version string comparison kind that gets through with false results.

The last update to the function was to compare each digit of the numbers between the dots one by one. However, recently Daijoubu reported that it would fail on 7 & 10. This is because it would compare 7 with 1 and immediately think the 1st one was larger! I've fixed the problem now (which has made the function even bigger!)

I was wondering if anyone could test the function more for me, which is here:
http://nsis.sourceforge.net/archive/...nstances=0,757

If you find one that fails, post it here so I can see it.

Cheers

-Stu

Instructor
23rd March 2005 09:10 UTC

Probably Afrow UK mean:
http://nsis.sourceforge.net/archive/...s=0,11,122,754

Instructor
23rd March 2005 09:58 UTC

(which has made the function even bigger!)

It's because there is check per digit per number and many exceptions. I choose other way - digits capacity in VersionCompare. I don't found any false results in VersionCheckNew (v4).

Afrow UK
23rd March 2005 12:55 UTC

Ah yeh, sorry I posted link to edit :)

-Stu

Instructor
28th March 2005 10:10 UTC

${VersionCheckNew} "91.1.1.1" "101.1.1.1" $R0

$R0="1"

Afrow UK
28th March 2005 20:02 UTC

Thanks Instructor. I found that problem a few days ago too and I think it's fixed now. It took me a few hours, but I thought of a new solution which should fix all the problems.
Uploaded as v5

-Stu

Instructor
29th March 2005 09:22 UTC

Very bad that you don't trying to see what do others :(

P.S.

${VersionCheckV5} "1.001" "1.0" $R0

$R0="2"

Afrow UK
29th March 2005 11:15 UTC

Thanks fixed.

-Stu

glory_man
7th June 2005 13:08 UTC

Version "1.00" is newer than "1.0". Is it supposed to be?

Afrow UK
7th June 2005 13:11 UTC

I'd just use Instructors VersionCompare :p

-Stu

glory_man
7th June 2005 13:33 UTC

Another question (general).
Why "1.1.1.1" not equal to "1.1.1.01"?

Afrow UK
7th June 2005 13:57 UTC

Because 01 is older than 1, as we go up in 01, 02, 03, to 1. 1 would be counted as "10".

-Stu

glory_man
7th June 2005 14:12 UTC

Than, if I include in script

VIProductVersion "1.1.0.001"
VIAddVersionKey "LegalCopyright" 'Ltd.'
VIAddVersionKey "FileDescription" "Test file"
VIAddVersionKey "FileVersion" "1.1.0.001"

And use GetDllVersion - version will be 1.1.0.1. Why?

Afrow UK
7th June 2005 14:17 UTC

NSIS treats 001 in a variable as 1 (when using IntOp)

-Stu

deguix
7th June 2005 20:15 UTC

Because 01 is older than 1, as we go up in 01, 02, 03, to 1. 1 would be counted as "10".

My opinion is that, the extra zeros in versions are just to show how the author organizes his versions. I think, zeros should be ignored if they are on the left of the number. Example: 1.01 = 1.00001. By this reasoning, I think Afrow UK is wrong in saying that 1.01 is older than 1.1, because it's like giving the extra digit a separation mark, like the ".". With Afrow's idea, what would be newer: 1.00, 1.0 or 1?

To make a version comparasion with only numbers, it's a matter of comparing the numbers inside the four groups w/ IntCmp, nothing more (and logically converting those numbers to be supported as decimal by NSIS, because 001 is considered as an octal number).

Instructor
8th June 2005 08:30 UTC

I think, zeros should be ignored if they are on the left of the number. Example: 1.01 = 1.00001. By this reasoning, I think Afrow UK is wrong in saying that 1.01 is older than 1.1, because it's like giving the extra digit a separation mark, like the ".".

Afrow UK isn't wrong:
1.01 != 1.00001, because 1.01 != 1.10
In your words NSIS 2.01 = NSIS 2.1 (it will be I hope :) )

glory_man
8th June 2005 11:43 UTC

My opinion is that, the extra zeros in versions are just to show how the author organizes his versions. I think, zeros should be ignored if they are on the left of the number. Example: 1.01 = 1.00001. By this reasoning, I think Afrow UK is wrong in saying that 1.01 is older than 1.1, because it's like giving the extra digit a separation mark, like the ".".

I am subscribe to this opinion.

2Instructor

Afrow UK isn't wrong:
1.01 != 1.00001, because 1.01 != 1.10
In your words NSIS 2.01 = NSIS 2.1 (it will be I hope :))

I don't agree. NSIS 2.01 has full version number 2.0.1, NSIS 2.1 wil be - 2.1.0.
In your words 1 kg 1000 times greater than 0001 kg.:):D

Instructor
8th June 2005 12:23 UTC

What sense give to the program version 1.01, if the same is 1.1? I saw only one reason: if number 1.01 compared with 1.1 it will be older :)

onad
8th June 2005 12:37 UTC

TIP: Versioning scheme as I see it...
I agree there is IMHO no sense in versioning 1.02
This is for me v1.0.2.x
Versioning scheme as I see it...

A.B.C.D

A = Product Major Version
B = Product Feature Release
C = Product Release incrementeal ID
D = Fix/Test/Debug/ for short the Build number

Example for a e.g. wordprocessor:

0.x = Initial development
1.0.0.0 = Initial Debug Release
1.0.0.57 = 57th testing build
1.0.1.1 = Initial "official" build
1.0.1.33 = 33rd fix for the official build
1.0.2.1 = Second "official" build including all bug fixes
1.1.1.278 = Now we have a spell checker
1.2.1.45 = And a thesaurus.
2.0.1.352 = And we introduced Linux compatibility because we built it with Kylix :)

Use this structure internally, it works very well. A customer needs to know A.B for features, A.B.C for fixes to features, and we use D internally for testing/debugging and emergency fixes for when taxes don't add up.

Success to everyone to streamline the versioning of your releases.

Emin

Comm@nder21
10th June 2005 16:06 UTC

normally its used this way:
major.minor.release.build

for most open source projects:
1.0.0.xxx - first public release
1.1.0.1 - first beta for 1.2 release
1.2.0.xxx - second public release
1.9.xx.xxx - beta releases for 2.0 RC
2.0.0.xxx - second major version, means bigger changes.

and so on ...
the last number ("build") is increased everytime a new beta/release is build and reset everytime the releasenumber changes.

NHOCSUNG
10th June 2005 23:46 UTC

you try this ... i didn't find any problem

!insertmacro STRFUNC_DEFFUNC VersionCheck
!define VersionCheck_List `ResultVar|CurVersion|CmpVersion`
!define VersionCheck_TypeList `Output 0 1 2|Text|Text`
!macro `FUNCTION_STRING_UnVersionCheck`
!undef UnVersionCheck
!insertmacro FUNCTION_STRING_VersionCheck
!macroend

!macro FUNCTION_STRING_VersionCheck
!insertmacro STRFUNC_FUNC `VersionCheck` `2004 - 2005 Tu Tong - Based on functions by Tu Tong`

Exch $R0
Exch
Exch $R1
Exch
Push $R2
Push $R3
Push $R4
Push $R5
Push $R6
Push $R7

StrCmp $R0 "" error 0
StrCmp $R1 "" error 0

StrCmp $R0 $R1 sameversion 0

ClearErrors
loop:
IfErrors sameversion
StrCmp $R0 "" sameversion
StrCmp $R1 "" sameversion

StrCpy $R4 $R0
GetLabelAddress $R7 return
Goto parse
return:
StrCpy $R6 $R3
StrCpy $R0 $R4

StrCpy $R4 $R1
GetLabelAddress $R7 return1
Goto parse
return1:
StrCpy $R5 $R3
StrCpy $R1 $R4

IntCmp $R6 $R5 0 olderversion newerversion
Goto loop

parse:
StrCpy $R2 0
StrLen $R5 $R4
parseloop:
StrCpy $R3 $R4 1 $R2
StrCmp $R3 "." parsecpy 0
IntCmp $R5 $R2 parsecpy parsecpy 0
IntOp $R2 $R2 + 1
Goto parseloop

parsecpy:
StrCpy $R3 $R4 $R2

IntOp $R5 $R5 - $R2
IntOp $R2 $R2 + 1
StrCpy $R4 $R4 $R5 $R2
Goto $R7

newerversion:
StrCpy $R0 "2"
Goto checkdone

sameversion:
StrCpy $R0 "0"
Goto checkdone

olderversion:
StrCpy $R0 "1"
Goto checkdone

error:
StrCpy $R0 ""

checkdone:
ClearErrors

Pop $R7
Pop $R6
Pop $R5
Pop $R4
Pop $R3
Pop $R2
Pop $R1
Exch $R0

;------------------------
;End

FunctionEnd

!macro FUNCTION_STRING_VersionCheck_Call ResultVar CurVersion CmpVersion
!verbose push
!verbose 4
!echo `$ {VersionCheck} "${ResultVar}" "${CurVersion}" "${CmpVersion}"`
!verbose pop

Push `${CurVersion}`
Push `${CmpVersion}`
Call VersionCheck
Pop `${ResultVar}`
!macroend
!macro FUNCTION_STRING_UnVersionCheck_Call ResultVar CurVersion CmpVersion
!verbose push
!verbose 4
!echo `$ {UnVersionCheck} "${ResultVar}" "${CurVersion}" "${CmpVersion}"`
!verbose pop

Push `${CurVersion}`
Push `${CmpVersion}`
Call un.VersionCheck
Pop `${ResultVar}`
!macroend

!macroend

deguix
11th June 2005 04:10 UTC

It's better for you to post a normal function, because UseFunc (old StrFunc) is being developed, so this function would need to be changed to adapt to future newer versions.

NHOCSUNG
24th August 2005 21:50 UTC

okay deguix i'll post normal function

here my update

Function VersionCheck
Exch $R1
Exch
Exch $R0
Exch
Push $R2
Push $R3
Push $R4
Push $R5
Push $R6

${If} $R0 == ""
${OrIf} $R1 == ""
Goto Error
${EndIf}

StrCmp $R0 $R1 sameversion

StrCpy $R4 $R0
Call :complete
StrCpy $R0 $R4

StrCpy $R4 $R1
Call :complete
StrCpy $R1 $R4

Goto compare

complete:
StrCpy $R6 0
StrCpy $R2 0
StrLen $R5 $R4
${Do}
StrCpy $R3 $R4 1 $R2
${If} $R3 == "."
IntOp $R6 $R6 + 1
${EndIf}
${IfThen} $R2 >= $R5 ${|} ${ExitDo} ${|}
IntOp $R2 $R2 + 1
${Loop}

${Select} $R6
${Case} 0
StrCpy $R4 "$R4.0.0.0"
${Case} 1
StrCpy $R4 "$R4.0.0"
${Case} 2
StrCpy $R4 "$R4.0"
${CaseElse}
StrCpy $R4 "$R4"
${EndSelect}
Return

compare:
ClearErrors
Loop:
IfErrors sameversion
StrCmp $R0 "" sameversion
StrCmp $R1 "" sameversion

StrCpy $R4 $R0
Call :parse
StrCpy $R6 $R3
StrCpy $R0 $R4

StrCpy $R4 $R1
Call :parse
StrCpy $R5 $R3
StrCpy $R1 $R4

IntCmp $R6 $R5 0 olderversion newerversion
Goto Loop

parse:
StrCpy $R2 0
StrLen $R5 $R4
${Do}
StrCpy $R3 $R4 1 $R2
${IfThen} $R3 == "." ${|} ${ExitDo} ${|}
${IfThen} $R2 >= $R5 ${|} ${ExitDo} ${|}
IntOp $R2 $R2 + 1
${Loop}

StrCpy $R3 $R4 $R2

IntOp $R5 $R5 - $R2
IntOp $R2 $R2 + 1
StrCpy $R4 $R4 $R5 $R2
Return

olderversion:
StrCpy $R0 "2"
Goto checkdone

newerversion:
StrCpy $R0 "1"
Goto checkdone

sameversion:
StrCpy $R0 "0"
Goto checkdone

error:
StrCpy $R0 ""

checkdone:
ClearErrors

Pop $R6
Pop $R5
Pop $R4
Pop $R3
Pop $R2
Pop $R1
Exch $R0

FunctionEnd