Accumulator bug

vvvv gamma bug
1

I’ve got a bug where using an accumulator in a repeat region to store the previous value of another accumulator won’t work unless there is an iobox or some other processing in between.

Tested on 6.6 stable and 6.7-0290

image
image1659×1069 69 KB

AccumulatorBug.vl (12.4 KB)

2 Likes
2

Just checked and it works correctly in latest previews. Was fixed with 7.0-0046. Thanks for the report!

1 Like
3

Hey hey

Still something funny happening with the accumulator with 7.0 preview-0154, I’m afraid.

See video:

  • each time I bang a new order of points is generated
  • you see that the curve is updated correctly at each bang, but the IOBox never updates
  • if after a few bangs I connect another IOBox to the same accumulator, they show different values (the new one shows the correct current values I guess, and the first one remains “frozen” to the first values it received)

Obviously values seem to pass through downstream but this IOBox thing is confusing!

Hope this helps!
T

4

I’ve noticed that if you connect bang after toggle if toggle pressed you can still bang on it, feels somewhat related, need to do a repo patch

5

@TremensS very hard to reproduce, but what I can see immediately is that you don’t have Spread, but some other type, maybe Sequence or something.

sequence

Screenshot_258
Screenshot_258794×876 12.8 KB

sequence_issue.vl (15.4 KB)

It’s like we should make a separate thread

6

7.167
hmm

7

Yes in my capture it is the reference to a MutableArray passed in/out from an If region.

Your examples show some funny things as well, but I’m not sure this is the exact same thing: your “hmmmm” and “made values by hand” point to IOBoxes inside the Repeat region; mine are outside of any region; they’re just connected to an accumulator output of the If.

Maybe you can try putting an IOBox directly at the output of your Cache at the top, and see if it updates properly at each bang, and/or if connecting another one after a few bangs show the same or updated values? This would be closer to my demonstrated case and it would be interesting to see if this can generalize to this other setup.

@antokhio

Not sure your problem is related, but I do confirm it happened to me frequently in the past weeks.
It was reported by @tgd here and apparently fixed by @gregsn in 7.0 preview-162

8

@TremensS If you don’t want to share the patch, please try to reproduce it. I just came across a bug that is most likely related to your problem while trying to reproduce it.

9

we tackled several glitches.
please enjoy the fixes with 7.0 preview-184 ;)
thanks for the reports!

3 Likes