Uwe Raabe

Not until you mentioned it. Will be fixed in the next release.

I have dropped using AddMasked for quite a while in favor of AddImages using a T(Virtual)ImageList and TActionList in dedicated datamodules. You can find that approach in https://github.com/UweRaabe/DelphiCodeCoveragePlugin. Note that unloading and reloading a plugin may scramble the image mapping. Alas I have not found a reliable test case up to now.

Sorry, that is only an excuse to not report bugs. It will only lead to the ability to lament on bugs not being fixed, while the reason they are not fixed is not being reported in the first place. While there indeed exist bugs that are not fixed in decades if ever, there are a lot more being fixed only because they were reported. F.i. my statistics list 145 reported bugs, from whom 30 are still open, while only 8 were closed as Works as expected. Reporting bugs is necessary for having them fixed - it may not be sufficient, but it just is necessary! So let me quote Thomas here:

The docs explains it:

Works for me.

If that is indeed the case you should escalate this until you succeed. This would be the first case where Embarcadero actually denies the bump even when the request was made through the required channels. I have been involved in a couple of cases in the German Delphi-PRAXiS where the hint contacting Embarcadero Germany was sufficient to get it done. I don't know which sales office is responsible for your case, but I suggest pestering them on and on to get this straight.

Ehm, what were your hope based on then? Random mutations of code caused by solar flares?

Although it has been mentioned before: The license isn't invalidated after subscription has run out. It keeps working and it can even be installed on another system. In case the installation counter needs to be bumped one has to contact Embarcadero Sales (in contrast to Support while on subscription) to get this increased. I have not heard of anyone where that has been denied.

Can you list the corresponding QP issues. I would like to have a look at that to push it a bit.

Indeed, a bit sad. I still have hope that this will get some traction shortly. It might be worth to know that a fork of that repo, namely https://github.com/UweRaabe/Delphi-Unit-Tests, is actually part of the regression tests run by Embarcadero. It also has a couple of contributors as well as branches, albeit lacking some activity, too.

AFAIK, that is simply not meant to work in the first place.

The point is that if you want to test for invalid parameters, you have to pass them inside another test method instead of a separate test case. Currently we have one test method procedure TestAdd(Value1, Value2, _Result: Int64); Unfortunately we don't have the implementation, so I have to do a bit of guessing here: procedure TMyTestClass.TestAdd(Value1, Value2, _Result: Int64); begin Assert.AreEqual(_Result, Add(Value1, Value2)); end; Whatever is passed to the TestAdd method, the parameters given to the Add method are always valid types. To test some invalid parameter we need another test method TestAddInvalidParams passing invalid parameters to the Add method. procedure TMyTestClass.TestAddInvalidParams; begin // call Add with some invalid params and chec if it fails end; Passing invalid parameters to TestAdd via a TestCase attribute only tests the capability of DUnitX to detect invalid parameters in a TestCase attribute. It does not test Add to fail with invalid parameters. BTW, whether you even can pass invalid parameters to Add depends on the declaration of Add which we cannot see.

Even if it would compile this way, it is quite possible that it does not do what you expect it to do: result := tSomeclass<T>(Classtype).Create(fSomeParameters);

Seems your are trying to test the test method or even DUnitX here instead of the method of your math unit.

While Delphi 12 supports ZIP encryption, the actual encryption algorithm has to be provided by the developer itself or a library implementing the new IZipCryptor interface. For the common PKWARE Zip 2.0 encryption (see APPNOTE.TXT) an implementation can be found in PKWAREZipCryptor.pas. The usage is shown in the following example, which extracts all files from an encrypted zip file: var bytes: TBytes; fileName: string; zipFile: TZipFile; begin zipFile := TZipFile.Create; try zipFile.Cryptor := TPKWAREZipCryptor.Create; zipFile.Password := cPassword; zipFile.Open(zipFileName, zmRead); for var I := 0 to zipfile.FileCount - 1 do begin fileName := zipFile.FileNames[I]; zipFile.Read(I, bytes); TFile.WriteAllBytes(fileName, bytes); end; zipFile.Close; finally zipFile.Free; end; end;

https://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/Athens/en/What's_New#Moving_Deprecated_Features

AFAIK, the plan was to make Refactoring opt-in, but it came with other regressions when not installed. So they finally made it opt-out. Anyway. It is commonly known since ages that any 0-release is not made for production. Let's wait for the first hotfix - at least.

It is deprecated because it is broken beyond repair. Better stop using it.

It is broken as it makes one assume the report is not created while actually it is. This leads to multiple duplicates, but filing a report is still possible. Just make sure to check for existence after creation before trying again to avoid these duplicates.

They found - what everyone else claimed for a long time - that it didn't keep up with the latest language enhancements. As it is based on other deprecated parts (i.e. Refactoring), they consequently marked it deprecated, too. Now they are working on or looking for replacements. Communicating that something is deprecated without having an alternative at hand is not necessarily a bad thing. People now know it advance what they can expect and rely on and what not.

It seems that the most effective incentive to use CE is: It's free.

Because a CE license is valid for one year only. After that you have to request a new CE license which will only work with the current CE version.

Not sure it is related, but there is a very inconsistent use of slash and backslash in the $env values.

Actually that looks like a reason to keep the current behavior instead of implementing the proposed one:

It would have the drawback that packages are loaded and unloaded again when the same project (or another with the same package requirements) is opened next. So the current implementation may just be some sort of performance optimization. IMHO, it is sufficient when there are no packages missing after the next project is loaded or a new one created. Can you explain what practical benefits the requested behavior would have?