From: Tommy Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 2:52 PM
To: ‘dan.mclane@coeurgroup.com’
Subject: FW: Call stack errors

Here’s an example of one of the applications (CSMS) that parts of our team support, which I always felt all the issues was just bad coding on the part of the vendor. I finally looked into the error for that team as it spilled over into our world and found this information, with a simple Google search, for them that confirmed my thoughts. The vendor ended up confirming this was a problem in the coding from what I heard afterwards. It’s frustrating that not one person did a search on our end or the vendor’s end for the error in the months they were complaining about the problem.

From: Tommy Thomas
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:02 AM
To: Winsome Jacobs; Mike Parker
Cc: Shawn Hoff; Jeff Bixler; Ted Owen; Douglas Day; Barbara L. Carnival; Sanaz Dabiri-Nasser; Grant Booth
Subject: RE: Call stack errors

I’m not sure this is something we as server managers can fix as this seems to be a programming error:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/developingfordynamicsgp/archive/2010/02/01/what-causes-an-all-call-stacks-in-use-error.aspx

The problem with running out of call stacks and generating a call stack error is usually caused when developers over use the run script command.

It is recommended that developers don’t nest run script commands more than 3 levels. This is should help avoid the issue from occurring. Other methods of avoiding the error include using functions and procedures rather than run script commands and using the run script delayed command. The run script delayed command starts the specified field change script after all foreground processing is complete and so does not use an additional call stack.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895449
http://community.dynamics.com/gp/b/developingforgp/archive/2010/01/31/what-causes-an-34-all-call-stacks-in-use-34-error-63.aspx

I could be wrong, but can the developers check for nested run scripts?

Thank-you,
Tommy Thomas MCP, Network+, Security+, C|EH, MCSA, MCSE
Network Systems Administrator
City of Ocala IT Division
110 SE Watula Ave.
Ocala, FL 34471
352.401.3928

From: Winsome Jacobs
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 9:56 AM
To: Mike Parker
Cc: Shawn Hoff; Jeff Bixler; Ted Owen; Douglas Day; Barbara L. Carnival; Sanaz Dabiri-Nasser; Grant Booth; Tommy Thomas
Subject: RE: Call stack errors
Importance: High

It’s been looked into now.

Winsome Jacobs, MBA, CGCIO
City of Ocala, IT Director
110 SE Watula Ave, Ocala FL 34471
Office: 352-629-8267
Cell: 352-304-9176

The City of Ocala provides fiscally responsible services consistent
with the community’s current and future expectations.

From: Mike Parker
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 9:56 AM
To: Winsome Jacobs
Cc: Shawn Hoff; Jeff Bixler; Ted Owen; Douglas Day; Barbara L. Carnival; Sanaz Dabiri-Nasser
Subject: Call stack errors

Hi Winsome,

Users are still receiving these call stack errors and locking up. The user then has to kill the GP process and log back in. It seems that it occurs with certain users more than others. Ramona from the call center, for example, locked up three times within one hour. Any ideas on the cause and what else may be done to resolve this issue?

Thanks,
Mike

From: Veronica Martinez
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 8:58 AM
To: Mike Parker; Barbara L. Carnival; Laurie Brown; Stephanie Macarages
Cc: Terry Austin; ‘mcoyle@cogsdale.com’
Subject: FW:

She’s had to log in/out three times in one hour.

From: Veronica Martinez
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 8:53 AM
To: Mike Parker; Barbara L. Carnival; Laurie Brown; Stephanie Macarages
Cc: Terry Austin
Subject: FW:

Good Morning,

Ramona keeps getting this message and has to log off…this really inconvenient when we have 40 calls holding. Can someone look into this for her as soon as possible?

Veronica

From: Ramona L. Williams
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 8:50 AM
To: Veronica Martinez
Subject:

<IMAGE OF ERROR>

Ramona L. Williams
City of Ocala Utility Services
Customer Service Agent
201 SE 3rd St
Ocala, FL 34470-4882
352.629.2489 (W)
352.629.1381 (F)