cfml

<@U06V253M4> TestBox is throwing an error of element filetemplate is not defined in local when trying to generate code coverage... Ever ran into this?

<@UBUCAQEU8> Not sure what you're seeing. Can you post the full error message here?

<@U06V253M4> I'm using :
• Adobe ColdFusion 2016 (`adobe@2016` as engine)
• TestBox `testbox-4.5.0+5-202112132349` 
with index.cfm containing the following code:
```&lt;cfparam name="url.opt_run" default="true"&gt;
&lt;cfparam name="url.recurse" default="true"&gt;
&lt;cfparam name="url.coverageEnabled" default="true"&gt;
&lt;cfparam name="url.coveragePathToCapture" default="#expandPath( '/subsidies/models' )#"&gt;
&lt;cfparam name="url.coverageWhitelist" default=""&gt;
&lt;cfparam name="url.coverageBlacklist" default="/qb,/testbox,/tests,Application.cfc,/index.cfm,/reset.cfm"&gt;
&lt;cfinclude template="../libs/testbox/test-runner/index.cfm"&gt;```
Using `server start` I spin up the server and navigate to <http://127.0.0.1/tests/> which yields the following error : <https://gist.github.com/satauros/ef8ec8ac0d8e1dc5e482453a1030a8eb>

I've narrowed it down to line 111 in testbox.system.coverage.browser.CodeBrowser.cfc (well duh, following the stack trace mentioned above ofc :D), but I have no idea as to why it fails...

At this point i've implemented a "hack" by wrapping the `fileWrite( ... )` with a `try{ } catch { }` block, but now I don't trust the results of the coverage anymore...

<@UBUCAQEU8> Wow, that's an interesting error.  I'm thinking this has to be an Adobe bug of some sort

Look  at the code
```			savecontent variable="local.fileTemplate" {
				include "templates/file.cfm";
			}

			fileWrite( theFile, local.fileTemplate );```
 There's _literally_ no way `local.fileTemplate` shouldn't be defined right there.

Giancarlo reported a similar really weird error (only on Adobe) just at CFSummit where a variable that totally existed was being reported as not existing.

Could it be that b/c it is defined in an anonymous closure, the local scope is acting up?

I assume switching to a regular `for()` loop would "work" (but be slower)

even if we have a repro case, Adobe isn't going to do anything about it being broken on 2016

Ill try it using cf 2021. I'll try to run it on lucee as well (its for testing purposes only). I'll get back to you