Missing line breaks in warning

Create issue
Issue #240 closed
Erik Schnetter created an issue

I received the following warning (which should say "warning" instead of "error", or should not appear at all):

Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2009.09.30-20.01.56 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2009.10.19-16.41.47 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2009.10.19-19.25.35 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2010.02.16-15.22.08 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2010.02.25-11.01.55 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2010.03.05-15.35.49 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2010.03.21-23.33.06 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2010.03.22-13.02.02 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2010.03.22-14.48.26 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2010.03.22-15.24.50 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation qc0-mclachlan-simple-oliver-2010.03.22-20.48.07 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation static_tov-oliver-2010.06.06-00.36.14 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation static_tov-oliver-2010.06.07-11.35.16 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation static_tov-oliver-2010.09.22-17.22.02 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping Error reading simulation static_tov-oliver-2010.10.08-23.09.00 with restart 0, broken/old simulation, skipping

Keyword:

Comments (2)

  1. anonymous
    • changed status to resolved
    • removed comment

    This has been corrected as of revision r1157. A more appropriate message is printed instead of the one seen here.

  2. Log in to comment