Unanswered

the function exp returned a non-finite number

(0) Share

Report

Posted on by TRoh

Hi,

I am trying to setup a simple app in PowerApps for Teams. I have turned on "Enhanced component properties" because I need to make some simple, generally available functions.

I have trouble to implement a simple exponential function. It always throws an error "the function exp returned a non-finite number".

"exponentialFunct" is a simple custom property within a Component with two inputs "x" and "y". I have connected two "textBoxes" to the inputs and one label to the output.

Strangely, the output is correctly calculated and returns the same results as Excel, but the Component on the Screen is always highlighted with the error symbol. The "App Checker" gives me a Runtime Error.

It looks, like there is an error, because the numbers get too large. But it still seems, that they are calculated OK. So the Error seems to be a bug, as far as I can see.

Categories:

Experimental features

I have the same question (0)

All responses (2)

Answers (1)

Verified answer

CarlosFigueira on at

Like (1)

Report

Thanks for reporting this issue. The error is coming from the component definition itself with the default values for the arguments for 'exponentialFunc'. Since this is an output property we should not be evaluating the value (nor reporting this error) - I'll create a bug for the product team to address it. Meanwhile, you can go to the component definition and change the default value for those arguments (i.e., setting x to 0.7 and y to 70, or other values that don't cause the Exp function to overflow), and this should remove the errors from your app.

Hope this helps!

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
TRoh 5 on at

Like (0)

Report

Thanks Carlos!
That solves it - I already suspected some default value (coming from more "regular" programming). I googled (or binged") for "default" in conjunction with custom components, but that did not return anything useful.
But the simple idea, that the defaults are also properties did not occur to me 🙂
There even is kind of logic in this - so maybe it would even be better, to just add it to the documentation, instead of not evaluating it (like a default in a classic function parameter).

Was this reply helpful? Yes No