It seems that my function block “Farver Kolonne 1” is not executed sequentially for each loop in the Count with j loop.
Could it be true that the execution is not waiting for “Farver Kolonne 1” to return in each loop, before continuing the loop?
Hereunder is the “Farver Kolonne 1” function block refered to above. Is it a problem with 3 count with block inside eachother??? They are about 10 to 16 count each. The execution takes several minutes.
I now have tested this isue. But no matter what I do the time to clone 50 empty button in af row takes almost 1 minute inside my ap. I du this as the first thing when the screen opens.
If I make a new app with the same block to copyin a row it works fine and is very fast.
What can slow this function so mutch in my app The strange is that it is the first thing I do…
On the picture i start repeating the clone block as the first thing. But it takes almost a minute to clone.
It work the same way without the timer…
Why do you use button cloning in a timer? What is this opens function? It seems to me that you are doing something wrong, so it turns out 1 minute. Turn off all blocks on the screen and only clone 50 buttons when opening the screen. The “tom” component is a button? Do you use “Starts” block or only “Opens”? Maybe the timer is cyclical?
that was a test regarding to the link you sent earlier. But that didnt work. But now I found out that wit a little wait on 0.01Sec in the cloning block help a lot.
But now i like to know if it is not possible to have more count inside each other like this. Becaus it seems like it stays inside the Count with X block and dont count the I and J block. How can I solve that?
Unfortunately, I can only say one thing - in correctly working blocks, you do not need to use a delay block. If a delay block is required for the blocks to work correctly, then either there is an error in the algorithm or there is a problem in the platform core. Unfortunately, at the moment I see a problem in the platform core and for this reason I stopped any consultation before fixing it. Using delay blocks to solve problems with the operation of blocks leads to the creation of unstable applications, and as a programmer, I do not see the point in creating such applications.
Actually it is not the delay block i worrie abboud. But I dont get out of the Count X block. Do you have a work around for that???
When you write " Unfortunately, at the moment I see a problem in the platform core and for this reason I stopped any consultation before fixing it"
Is that correct that it is a problem on your side that you will fix??
Actually it is not the delay block i worrie abboud. But I dont get out of the Count X block. Do you have a work around for that???
Let’s take it in order. I see the “wait” block in your blocks. Why do I need it in a properly compiled algorithm? Do you use this block to make the app run slower? Personally, I can’t give an example of the need to use the “wait” block in applications.
Second. If you do not exit the x loop, then you need to make a minimum number of blocks to check what it turns out. There are only two possible errors: either an error in your algorithm, or a bug in the system.
When you write " Unfortunately, at the moment I see a problem in the platform core and for this reason I stopped any consultation before fixing it"
Is that correct that it is a problem on your side that you will fix??
I am not a developer of Thunkable X and for this reason the problem can’t be on my side. After several recent updates to thunkable X, I came across the fact that for the block to work correctly, it is necessary to use the delay block. From my point of view, this is a big problem. (First) the Blocks must work reliably without any delays, or if the blocks do not have time to perform the operation. then you need a (Second)block event, which can be used to determine the successful completion of the operation. This is not the case, and I do not know how to create reliable applications in such conditions.
