Currently we don't seem to have a good way of reminding/encouraging the OP to accept answers. If we add a suitable comment to their post, this means everyone gets the impression there's new information on that post, which rises to the top of the "most recent" list.

Maybe DC could periodically send each user a list of their questions that have at least one answer but none yet accepted.

Please give us more context. Where is the question arising from? It looks a bit like a homework assignment after a class covering a specific area of the COS language.

Nancy, to help with DC housekeeping, please re-post your comment as an Answer, then set the checkmark against its title so your original question disappears from the "no answer" and "unanswered" views.

I guess I could add a little backdoor into this method as well; a screen door, if you will, on my back door.

A smart catflap?

I agree Robert. After discussing with some of my fellow moderators I've also relocated this post to the Announcements group, because posts to the Developer Community Feedback group don't appear on the homepage (by design). I have also changed it from Question to Article, otherwise you're going to be expected to "accept" one of the answers

Answered in comments.

I have just posted an article here about how to determine whether a class is mapped.

Thiago, maybe re-post your Comment as an Answer. That way the OP can set the checkmark alongside your answer, so the question no longer lists as "unanswered". Plus, you get credit.

Tom, maybe re-post that information as an Answer rather than a Comment. Then you can accept your own answer (set the checkmark alongside it), so your question no longer lists as "unanswered".

AFAIK we users aren't able to change increase this value. If we could, we might be tempted to set it to a very large value

See [@Robert.Cemper]'s answer for how you can decrease it.

Today I am seeing this being caused by a post whose <pre>...</pre> block of SQL code got snipped part way through. No </pre> tag got added, so the rest of the page is monospace font.

Pedro - good to see that DC members were able to help. Now please set the "accepted answer" checkmark that only you (as OP) are able to set. If you're unsure where to look, see my screenshot below:

Maybe worth adding that the two MS packages can be run with command line options suitable for unattended use, e.g.

vcredist_x86.exe /passive /norestart

For a dialog box showing all the command line options:

vcredist_x86.exe /help

or

vcredist_x86.exe /?

I wish an unattended install of Cache would install these runtime prerequisites automatically for us. I think it does that when doing an interactive install, which would imply that the vcredist_x*.exe kits are already bundled inside the cache*.exe installer.

Adding to the other answers, I notice the OP wrote "I need my globals unreadable if other process is in critical area".

This means you will need to obtain LOCKs before referencing (reading) the globals. But in this case you might opt to request shared LOCKs, e.g.

LOCK +(^A#"S",^B#"S",^C#"S")
WRITE !,"^A=",^A,!,"^B=",^B,!,"^C=",^C,!
LOCK -(^A#"S",^B#"S",^C#"S")

The use of shared locks will allow multiple concurrent reader processes, while still blocking all readers if a writer holds conflicting locks. A would-be writer will also be blocked while any readers still hold conflicting locks.

Robert, your first doc link is actually for $TEST. The link for LOCK is http://docs.intersystems.com/latest/csp/docbook/DocBook.UI.Page.cls?KEY=...

You can use a 0 second timeout on the LOCK command. That way your process will proceed immediately and you can check the value of $TEST (either directly, or indirectly using the ELSE command or an argumentless IF) to discover if you got the lock(s) or not.

When processing the two pieces of a timestamp such as $ZTS it is safer to assign the timestamp once to a variable, then operate on that variable, e.g.  instead of

W (+$ZTS-47117*86400) + $J($P($ZTS,",",2),0,0)

use

S zts=$ZTS W (+zts-47117*86400) + $J($P(zts,",",2),0,0)

This avoids the edge case in the original code, where the first evaluation of $ZTS happens just before the midnight rollover and the second evaluation at or just after it.

This continues to happen with 2017.1.1 when doing an unattended install. I have opened ticket 886059 with WRC about it. Turns out I had overlooked this note in the doc: