Oh dear, a dodgy old piece of code in ColdFusion 8 style with local scopes!

A seldom used piece of code fell victim to the "new" ColdFusion "Local scope" from CF 9 (Centaur)

With an Application.cfc; naturally everything inside it is local'ish when the onRequest exists:
<cfcomponent displayname="Application" output="true" hint="Handle the application.">
    <cffunction name="OnRequestStart" access="public" returntype="boolean" output="false">
        <cfargument name="TargetPage" type="string" required="true"    />
        <cfreturn true />
    </cffunction>
    <cffunction name="OnRequest" access="public" returntype="void" output="true">
        <cfargument    name="TargetPage" type="string" required="true" />
        <cfinclude template="#arguments.TargetPage#" />
        <cfreturn />
    </cffunction>
</cfcomponent>


Suppose a simple file called ohdear.cfm

<cfset local.myvar = "abc">


included from a file here say runme.cfm:

<cfset url.myvar= "123">
<cfoutput>#myvar#</cfoutput><!--- outputs 123 --->
<cfinclude template="ohdear.cfm">
<cfdump var="#local.myvar#"><!--- outputs abc --->
<cfoutput>#myvar#</cfoutput><!--- lookup to the url scope, whoops, local is first, outputs abc, Doh! --->

So the output is: 123 abc abc


If only an Application.cfm, with no Application.cfc, then the result is completely different: 111 abc 111

Must have been a stroke of genius to think that it would be cool to use local as a scope within an include file :)

FYI; according to CF 9 and the documentation; the scope precedence is :

  1. Local (function-local, UDFs and CFCs only)
  2. Arguments
  3. Thread local (inside threads only)
  4. Query (not a true scope; variables in query loops)
  5. Thread
  6. Variables
  7. CGI
  8. Cffile
  9. URL
  10. Form
  11. Cookie
  12. Client




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

cf_sql_timestamp vs cf_sql_date vs getdate()

If there's one thing I don't like it is people confusing a date with a timestamp, and how a lazy bit of development can ruin a load of data. Here is a simple query inserting data to a timestamp I found in a system where all the created dates were truncated because of the incorrect syntax. Bad one which was in use: insert into testdate values (<cfqueryparam cfsqltype="cf_sql_date" value="#createodbcdatetime(now())#">); Result :  2015-09-29 00:00:00.000 Best One (easiest to read) insert into testdate values(getdate() ); Result : 2015-09-29 10:10:09.880 Not great (no binding) insert into testdate values(#createodbcdatetime(now())#); Result :  2015-09-29 10:14:44.000 What the bad one should have been insert into testdate values(<cfqueryparam cfsqltype=" cf_sql_timestamp " value="#createodbcdatetime(now())#">)
Read more

Global SQL Procedure, System Objects and sp_ms_marksystemobject

You may come across a need to have a database of utils full of generic procedures which work on indvidual databases (say client databases). You can't pass the database name into the procedure as a parameter and say "use @dbname" in the procedure and dynamic sql sucks. One workaround is to create the procedure in the master database and then mark it as a system object. eg use [master] create procedure sp_doThis // note the sp_ prefix is required begin // etc etc end go exec sp_ms_marksystemobject 'sp_doThis' // second note, this procedure is undocumented, so I wouldn't be relying on this for life or death. use [myotherdb] exec sp_doThis go All done!
Read more

Ghost Records, Card Recon and PCI Compliance

As part of a PCI Compliance audit, I recently ran a scan on a database using software call Card Recon. A little odd thing occurred. At a point in the past, a row of data in a column, which had been dropped from the database schema, contained a single test credit card number. However, the Card Recon software showed that the data was still there in the database file (this was a SQL Database) in the form of a SQL Ghost Record. A Ghost Record can appear when running a delete or insert command and when running delete and insert in different queries but related by the same indexed data, you can read all about it over at Ghost "Rows" Buster in  SQL Server on Technet. It's basically a record somewhere in the database file, but not directly in a database table and is living in a bit of spare fragmented space somewhere and this needs to be cleaned up. Following this procedure managed to remove the Ghost Record: Convert the database to Simple (only so the transactio
Read more