VBA Rubberducking

Duga

12:00 AM

RELOAD!

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] 1 opened issue. 2 issue comments.

this

5:51 AM

@Mat'sMug so dead simple.

Vogel612

7:58 AM

well ... that was kinda anticlimactic...

@this seems like a good moment to chew that person out on twitter

Duga

9:00 AM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] WaynePhillipsEA synchronized pull request #3716: TypeLibsAPI (WIP)

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 27559008 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded

WaynePhillipsEA

10:37 AM

I've now worked out how to grab the predeclared instance of a class from its ITypeInfo. It feels like I'm pretty close to being able to instantiate a class

4

M.Doerner

1:23 PM

Just read up pn the chat log of the last few days.

@IvenBach For setting the types in the resolver, you will probably want to look at the point in the declaration resolver where primitive types are set.

The alternative, would be to set the the types in the TypeAnnotationPass that is run by the reference resolver. However, then you will have to save the def directives on the, module declaration in order to be able to access them there.

Duga

3:11 PM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] bclothier commented on Rubberduck.VBEEditor/ComManagement/TypeLibs/TypeLibsAPI.cs of pull request #3716: TypeLibsAPI (WIP)

this

@Vogel612 I don't do twitter. Never understood the social media, TBH. Besides, I'm not the chewing-out type of person.

WaynePhillipsEA

WRT my earlier comment about grabbing the predeclared instances, I am now thinking it's not all that useful. Sure, we can grab the predeclared instance once it has been created, but if that instance hasn't yet been created (i.e. the VBA runtime hasn't touched the predeclared variable) then the predeclared instance is null.

this

@WaynePhillipsEA given that we can ExecuteCode which can run a procedure that calls back with the objects we want, I think we are fine w/o it.

WaynePhillipsEA

yeah, I was basically trying to find a way to create object instances directly, which would have been a nice-to-have

unfortunately, it looks like we're about 3 layers of API abstraction away from the ability to create-instances

which would take me about a week to work out.

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] WaynePhillipsEA commented on Rubberduck.VBEEditor/ComManagement/TypeLibs/TypeLibsAPI.cs of pull request #3716: TypeLibsAPI (WIP)

Mat's Mug

3:26 PM

@WaynePhillipsEA do you mean "create an instance of a VBA class from the VBA project" or "create an instance of a VBA class on the fly"?

WaynePhillipsEA

the latter

Mat's Mug

ok that's sick

WaynePhillipsEA

I just can't find an easy route for us to get that feature... yet

Mat's Mug

With Fakes.UserDefinedClass.Mock(New Something)
    .Setup("DoSomething")
    .RaisesError(5)
    '...
End With

drool

WaynePhillipsEA

one day I'm sure I'll stumble upon something and I'll come back to it

this

3:44 PM

hmm - can we at least get the interfaces from VBA class?

if we can then we can use .NET's mocking to provide that?

WaynePhillipsEA

sure

this

hmmm, can TypeOf Something can even be passed as parameter? Never tried that....

WaynePhillipsEA

In VBA? result is a boolean, from the 'is' part of the expression. TypeOf on its own is not valid

this

was thnking of a way to strong-type the type of hte class

e.g. TestThis(TypeOf MyVBAClass)

Mat's Mug

the only way I can see this work would be stringly-typed

this

3:55 PM

so we can get the types without using strings and pass it to the .NET's mocking framework

Mat's Mug

Moq?

this

basically create a COM interface for Moq

dispatch the VBA class to it

Mat's Mug

that'd make a neat distinctive feature - "Use Moq mocking framework in your VBA unit tests!"

this

let Moq take care of the actual mocking of the vba class

the hard part is somehow passing the type of the class

without resorting to strings.

Mat's Mug

that would be Wayne's magic there

WaynePhillipsEA

4:02 PM

via ITypeInfo?

Mat's Mug

we get a string that represents a VBA class name

create an instance of it and pass it to moq

the rest is just API-wrapping

Hosch250

FWIW, Moq can only mock interfaces and virtual classes.

Mat's Mug

...or we make our own mocking framework

#BecauseWhyNot

this

wait a minute- why do we need to create an instance?

doesn't Moq create a mock?

Mat's Mug

the key is just being able to get an object, know everything about its interface, and substitute it with an on-the-fly object that Implements that interface (return that object to the VBA caller)

Hosch250

4:04 PM

Yeah...

this

note with Wayne's API, we already can get interfaces

from the ITypeInfo

but the trick is how do we strong-type it in the VBA testing code that's driving the test?

Mat's Mug

I don't think we can

hmm

this

so gonna to be stringly typed?

Mat's Mug

With Fakes.UserDefinedClass.Mock(New Something)

this

With Mock("MyVBAClass") ....

Mat's Mug

4:07 PM

we could pass an instance of the type we need

this

if you new it, you get side effects.

Mat's Mug

shoot, that's right

this

the next best thing we can do is to inspect for strings that don't reference a vba class

or for missing tests for a given type

Mat's Mug

if you don't already have an instance to pass, you're kind of F'd

this

ok, I'm confused, @Mat'sMug

I thought Moq doesn't need an instance

just stick an interface in it, and it'll make something out of thin air

no need to new the class being mocked?

Mat's Mug

4:08 PM

not sure moq will be able to handle this

this

exactly what does it do wiht the interfaces provided?

Mat's Mug

it creates a type that implements it

WaynePhillipsEA

does it handle all the COM side of things, like responding to the correct IIDs in QueryInterface()?

Mat's Mug

very probably not

WaynePhillipsEA

then VBA wont accept it

this

4:15 PM

does that type need to pass the boundary?

Mat's Mug

it's hardly working with .net code lol

WaynePhillipsEA

lol

this

yeah it'd have to, since we need to run methods on it.

Wayne, how hard is it to make it auto-generate COM interfaces on fly? :p

WaynePhillipsEA

For VBA to accept it, it needs to setup the equivalent vtable and respond correctly to QueryInterface

this

double checking because I am a bit unsure we need to do so

if we create a IMockCOM interface that exposes all the methods on Mock class

then pass in the interface from VBA class

WaynePhillipsEA

4:18 PM

It's not that hard actually, but I did something similar in vbWatchdog, where I had C++ simulate the interfaces, and it worked fine in both 32-bit and 64-bit until they made some 'optimizations' in Office 2010 SP1 that broke 64-bit support.

In 64-bit VBA now, they don't use the vtable if the COM object comes from inside the VBA project

this

uh oh. Does that impact RD, too?

WaynePhillipsEA

No, you're not simulating interfaces

this

alright - back to the original question - so if we have a IMockCom interface to expose Moq's Mock class, and it works with only VBA class' interfaces.... will we have problems?

(and how the heck do they not use vtables anyway?)

WaynePhillipsEA

yes. the only way around it is to return it as an Object

They have optimized vtables that are not COM compatible

this

oh ok

WaynePhillipsEA

4:21 PM

and they are not in the 'normal' place for a vtable

You basically can't forge it for internal types in 64-bit VBA

it's basically like the difference between stdcall and fastcall in C++

this

ah

gotcha

and object lets us circumvent that problem... why?

(that being the problem of passing forth/back the Moq's Mock class)

WaynePhillipsEA

because it just works through IDispatch, which is an external type so there's no optimized vtables

this

hmm. This seems a concern only for the VBA class interfaces.

With Fakes.UserDefinedClass.Mock(New Something)
    .Setup("DoSomething")
    .RaisesError(5)
    '...
End With

the Mock can be a dual interface

it's the Something (the VBA class) that we need to marshal across the boundaries

WaynePhillipsEA

gotcha

Mat's Mug

and whatever proxy on-the-fly magic type returned by this Mock method.

WaynePhillipsEA

4:28 PM

What does the Mock() actually return then?

Mat's Mug

actually, .Object would be the on-the-fly magic type that Implements Something

WaynePhillipsEA

in VBA terms

Mat's Mug

just a COM-visible class

this

~~that means it needs to aggregate the interfaces~~

WaynePhillipsEA

Sure, I mean what type

this

4:29 PM

Something in this case.

Mat's Mug

no

that would be a Rubberduck.MockClass or something

this

confused Isn't tthat how Moq works? create an implementation of the interface being mocked?

WaynePhillipsEA

right, i see.

Mat's Mug

@this moq gives you a Mock<T>

Mock<T>.Object is the magic type

this

Right. Oh, so Mock<T>.Object is the T

Mat's Mug

4:30 PM

yeah

this

but Mock<T> is Moq.Mock, got it

Mat's Mug

:+1:

this

which we implemetn as IMockCom dual interface

right?

Mat's Mug

the MockClass needs to expose methods to set it up

definitely

this

so problem solved then. We create a COM-compatible interface to expose the Moq's Mock class to VBA

with some methods to string-type the VBA class being mocked

grab the interface from ITypeInfo, and .... mock it, then return to VBA to do whatever

Mat's Mug

4:31 PM

again I doubt Moq can do the gruntwork for us here

this

why exactly?

Mat's Mug

var mock = new Mock<WhatsThisT>(notYourTypicalManagedInterface);

or even var mock = new Mock(TypeOf(someComObject));

Moq only handles interface and abstract classes

this

So?

public IMockCom Mock(string VBAClassName)
{
  Type IVBAClass = TypeLibAPI.GetInterfaceForClass(VBAClassName);
  return Mock = New MockCom<IVBAClass>(IVBAClass);
}

(oversimplified but that illustrates the point)

and besides all VBA classes are interfaces.

even for a VBA class with no Implements anything, it creates an interface behind the scene, which we get from TypeLib API.

Mat's Mug

they're COM interfaces, not sure the CLR will understand them as such

this

interfaces are interfaces.

Mat's Mug

4:38 PM

seems everything looks like a class to .net

this

hm. you're worried that there must be implemetnation behind each interface?

Mat's Mug

no, just that what COM says is an interface, the CLR doesn't see as such

i.e. I expect Moq to throw something like "can't mock this type"

this

hmm. that'd be news to me because CLR has to work with COM interfaces as such.

but meh. if we must reinvent the wheel, reinvent we shall.

HHICB....

Mat's Mug

[CrapTonOfAttributes]
public class SomeCOMInterface
{
    // ....
}

^ that's how I'd say .net sees it, AFAIK

i.e. sure it knows how to marshal it back & forth, but as far as managed code is concerned, it's a class - and that's all Moq is going to be seeing

this

the thing is that the class is made by VBA

if CLR can see it, so can Moq. and Moq shouldn't care how it's implemented because it creates a fake class that implements the same interface, no?

Mat's Mug

4:48 PM

but Moq doesn't mock anything you throw at it

if you give it a concrete type, is won't work

this

Correct

and your example above assumes it's a class

Mat's Mug

and SomeCOMInterface is a concrete type as far as .net is concerned

this

which I think is incorrect

Mat's Mug

you have RD/VS open?

this

VS, yes but not RD

Mat's Mug

4:49 PM

hmm

I'd say bring up the object browser and look at the VBIDE API

hmm actually you might be correct

we used to mock VBE directly

because it's an inteface

this

COM uses interfaces by defintiion

Mat's Mug

anyway, there's nothing like trying :)

this

the worst thing that happens is Moq says screw you

and we go on to invent our own mocking framework. :)

but i'd like to try and avoid reinventing if we can.

Mat's Mug

of course

this

BTW FWIW -- in object browser, you'll see types like Excel.ApplicationClass

Mat's Mug

4:52 PM

yup

this

but you can never use them directly; you'd have to always work with Excel.Application which is in fact an interface

(TBH I don't know why they bother exposing those coclasses in OB anyway....)

IvenBach

@M.Doerner Haven't looked at anything yet. I'll definitely request assistance if I get lost in the weeds.

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] WaynePhillipsEA synchronized pull request #3716: TypeLibsAPI (WIP)

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 93edd548 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded

WaynePhillipsEA

5:54 PM

@Mat'sMug @this mentioned the other day about your references dialog. something about the IsBroken property being .. broken

in the TypeLibs API I can expose the raw reference strings (the hash delimited ones) if that is of any use

like this: *\G{4AFFC9A0-5F99-101B-AF4E-00AA003F0F07}#9.0#0#C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office 2003\OFFICE11\MSACC.OLB#Microsoft Access 11.0 Object Library

Mat's Mug

I need to get back to that dialog...

What would that string give me?

Oh wait, the path won't be there for a borked ref?

IMO best place to fix broken VBIDE API members would be in the wrappers

this

Yeah, Mat.

Not sure how wrapper helps?

you need to see what references a VBA project is trying to use

to help users fix it, no?

WaynePhillipsEA

6:09 PM

Yeah, you will get the cached expected path

this

I've resorted to this hash string (which I got it another way) to avoid relying on the crappy References collection.

Yeah, but even having the expected path is very helpful in trobuleshooting

I'm thinking in particular about those stupid SysWOW64/System32 for those lousy active x controls which nobody should be using but they do anyway

WaynePhillipsEA

+1

this

there are also other oddities... ADO versioning being an example

Mat's Mug

6:30 PM

@this the dialog fetches project refs from the References collection; the presenter will be using the References collection to add & remove references too

this

Which is fine... until you have a project w/ broken references

At least in Access, you can't use it.

well, you sort of but not all of its members. and it's very hard

Using the raw hash string would allow you to recreate the information that you otherwise could not get from the References in such state.

WaynePhillipsEA

I can parse the strings into a compatible references collection if that helps

this

6:45 PM

then @Mat'sMug can use that as a fallback when he loads his dialog.

Hosch250

9:12 PM

We formally announced we are moving to Git.

Working on training, et al.

Also, we are updating our build to C# 7.2 from C 6.0.

IvenBach

Hope it's a smooth transition.

Hosch250

Everyone has been in VS 15 for several months, so Mat can't complain about anything.

@IvenBach Me too.

IvenBach

You can always complain.

Mat's Mug

@Hosch250 congrats!!

@Hosch250 ?

Hosch250

You are always complaining about VS 15 AKA VS 2017.

List of autodidacts

This is a list of notable autodidacts which includes people who have been partially or wholly self-taught. == Historical education levels == Because of the large increase in years of education since 1800, especially during the early 20th century, it is difficult to define autodidactism and to compare autodidacts during different time periods. == Artists and authors == Benjamin Kidd (1858–1916), British sociologist, was not given a formal education. As a working adult, he attended some evening classes and he read incessantly. Kidd gained worldwide fame by the publication of Social Evolution in...

Just goes to show the self-taught can be quite successful.

Mat's Mug

9:25 PM

it's not so much VS2017 that's the problem; it's more about upgrading early and then facing all kinds of stupid useless issues including but not limited to CI integration, Antlr integration, various VS bugs, etc.

this

IOW, being at the cutting edge tends to bleed.

Profusely.

Mat's Mug

@Hosch250 yup. some even get Microsoft MVP awards :)

Hosch250

Yup.

I've yet to meet a reasonably-smart person who didn't take learning into their own hands.

this

Well, it stands to reason, learning enables one to learn more.

Like how cranes can be used to build taller cranes

IvenBach

You can't teach someone the desire to learn more.

this

9:28 PM

yeah, that, too.

Hosch250

Yeah. That's why I hate this thing about "higher education" and "the college experience" (AKA drugs, booze, and sex).

this

it is one big lie, yeah

mind you there are times where you do need it ---- engineers and doctors come to mind, mainly because of licensing requirements.

but to go and take sociology.... to do what, exactly?

Hosch250

Oh, I have no problems with it if the person actually wants to do it.

IvenBach

@this To socioligize, of course....

Hosch250

Like, they live for their field.

this

9:31 PM

yeah - that.

if they are just like "oh, it looks interesting"

Hosch250

But most people take it because they think it will be easy.

this

they're in for a major disappointment.

Hosch250

And if they live for their field, then there are many programs to help them gain it if they can't afford it, from loans to need- and merit-based scholarships.

this

yep

and see, the more people go to college, the more crowded out this gets.

Mat's Mug

@this to sound like you know what you're talking about when you write a rant about millenials in the local newspaper

2

Hosch250

9:41 PM

@Mat'sMug LOL. But these are the millennials.

Mat's Mug

whatever follows them, then

Hosch250

LOL. People never change.

They'll be writing rants about the future generations forever.

Nelson Vides

Just connected from a couple of days of being too busy at work and I join in time for education ranting, love it :D

Hosch250

@NelsonVides It's Rubberduck. We talk about everything under the sun and remain civil.

Well, mostly.

this

Frankly - "the world's going to hell in a handbasket" is a tired and old cliche, uttered ever since the start.

Hosch250

9:44 PM

@this Why the handbasket? Why isn't it being ridden to hell on a rail, or something?

this

good question. it's a old saying.

Mat's Mug

@Hosch250 depends what generation is ranting

Nelson Vides

@this and we also learn new English sayings here

@IvenBach that has been a bit of a frustration sometimes for me

this

for me, I really like this one old saying which has since fallen out of use: I used to go to the market with money in my pocket and return with a basket of goods. Now, I go to the market with a basket of money and return with goods in my pocket.

Nelson Vides

@this lol

IvenBach

9:46 PM

@NelsonVides Those that want to stay ignorant will. Each is free to make their own choice, I don't want to hear about them complain about the consequences of said choice.

Anyone able to assist a bit with ConditionalFormatting?

I get it figured out only to forget by the next time I need to do it via VBA.

Nelson Vides

About what Iven said... I've had this problem recently... changing cities and looking for new dojos for Karate, I've seen quite a bit of shit around the world...

I remember me explaining that, even if I'll most likely never be the karate world champion, I am utterly unable to understand why wouldn't I train like the world champion

Hosch250

@NelsonVides That's just a limitation of your imagination :P

Mat's Mug

@this now I browse to the market, fill up my basket, proceed to checkout, don't even need my wallet, get free shipping before sunset, and UPS wrecks the goods upon my doorstep

Nelson Vides

I mean, I want my training to be the same or even harder than that of the world champion. I don't care if I'm not reaching him, but not training harder than him is being utterly lazy for me

Hosch250

@Mat'sMug Happened to your drives?

Mat's Mug

9:51 PM

nah

IvenBach

whew... got worried for a moment.

Nelson Vides

@Hosch250 I almost believed that for a second!

Hosch250

@Mat'sMug What about your credit card? Not in your wallet?

Nelson Vides

@Mat'sMug how are your drives on steroids?

Mat's Mug

'tis, but Amazon knows

@NelsonVides they look good, can't wait for the damned caddies to come in now

Hosch250

9:53 PM

In other words, Bezos has his hands in your wallet, figuratively?

Mat's Mug

Bezos has his hands in a lot of people's wallets, figuratively :)

this

hmm. I question whether it's figurative.

Mat's Mug

1

A: Formatting all empty rows using looping

If the cells can later be edited and the formatting needs to be removed for no-longer-empty rows, then your one-time initial formatting isn't going to cut it. Best setup your generated worksheet (assuming you're generating that worksheet) with a conditional format. You do that by creating Format...

Hosch250

Including my mom. I don't store mine on-site, and I use gift cards from work when I can.

Nelson Vides

Guys, it's official, my manager wants me to show RD to the rest of the team, there's a small meeting scheduled for possibly next Friday.

5

Mat's Mug

9:55 PM

nice!

Hosch250

@NelsonVides That's as good news as mine about Git.

Mat's Mug

@NelsonVides let us know how it goes!

(hopefully doesn't crash too much!)

Hosch250

@this Me too, but I didn't want to be too inflammatory. I hate Amazon, but it's just too handy and too futile to fight it.

IvenBach

Dim foo As Range
Set foo = Sheet1.Range("G9:I11")
Dim bar As FormatCondition
Set bar = foo.FormatConditions.Item(1)

@Mat'sMug ^ Set a manual CF and am perusing through bar that way.

More'n one way to get'r'dun.

Nelson Vides

(He also wants me to talk to them about good coding practices and make some presentation about it :| )

Hosch250

9:57 PM

@NelsonVides :)

IvenBach

@NelsonVides Make RD more important to them than sliced bread.

Nelson Vides

@IvenBach if I make it more important than cabbage we're the kings :D

this

well, well, time has come to talk about cabbage and kings and why seas are boiling hot.

Mat's Mug

@NelsonVides if you want to make a good impression, don't open & close multiple projects - load up one in Excel, bring up the VBE, present the features, should be good

Nelson Vides

mostly Polish people in the team, here this sauerkraut is like a religion xD

Mat's Mug

10:00 PM

expect "oooh" and "aaaah!" with the Code Explorer :)

2

make sure you cover that nifty search bar!

Nelson Vides

I have my Invoice Classifier ready for them, only one project and has everything: Interfaces, patterns, unit testing, excellent indentation...

IvenBach

Don't forget to go to SO and copy-pasta code so you get plenty of inspection hits.

Mat's Mug

IIRC "goto implementation" doesn't work very well from the CE

Nelson Vides

@IvenBach right, I'll also need some example of bad code to inspect it

IvenBach

@NelsonVides Look at anything I write then. :wink:

Nelson Vides

10:03 PM

mostly I need to study Patterns, I'm loving them and I think they're very useful for organising stuff

UI patterns, somebody slap my face and wake me up

IvenBach

I need to internalize patterns also.

Nelson Vides

but others are quite easier to get

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] rkapka synchronized pull request #3718: Moving all default settings to .settings file

Nelson Vides

@IvenBach I found this guy giving quite intuitive explanations: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrhzvIcii6GNjpARdnO4ueTUAVR9eMBpc

IvenBach

The man-bun is going to be hard for me to get over. Besides that I'll give it watch.

Duga

10:08 PM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit d927937e on unknown branch: AppVeyor build failed

BUILD FAILURE!

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] retailcoder commented on pull request #3718: Moving all default settings to .settings file

> AppVeyor is claiming a build error here, involving ParseTreeInspectionBase and DefTypeInspection

Nelson Vides

10:25 PM

exploring through RD I've just discovered the term cyclomatic complexity... this topic is very interesting!

also, more tabs on my firefox.

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] rkapka commented on pull request #3718: Moving all default settings to .settings file

> Yeah, I didn't take a closer look that an inspection was added. The default severity is now inside the .settings file, so there is no constructor in ParseTreeInspectionBase taking a severity.

Mat's Mug

@nateAtwork the link merely points to a screenshot of the Rubberduck command bar showing details about the current selection; see rubberduckvba.com and/or the links in my profile. I don't know of any other tool that has as deep an understanding of the code in the VBIDE, but I'm possibly biased ;-) — Mat's Mug 7 mins ago

we have a new fan

IvenBach

Very good video now that I'm able to understand polymorphism better.

Mat's Mug

@IvenBach you use polymorphism every time you run an inspection

the Inspector only ever cares about IInspection :)

and we have 60-some wildly different implementations of that interface

IvenBach

I really better understand the theory and am comfortable with it.

Mat's Mug

10:29 PM

:+1:

IvenBach

Now I need to code against that and become code-aware and familiar doing that.

Once the calculations are done, next week, I may be able to get back to VS/studying.

this

interesting how some people balk at the idea of typing more

less is sometimes more, but more of less is less than less of less, and in some cases, more is more than less. One has to know when to less and when to mess.

And if you had to read that sentence more than once, the point is made. :)

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] rkapka commented on pull request #3695: Iss388 obsolete def type statement

> Any specific reason why this was merged, given that the PR has a WIP label?

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] rkapka synchronized pull request #3718: Moving all default settings to .settings file

IvenBach

@NelsonVides A very worthwhile video. I'll make the time to watch more.

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] rkapka commented on pull request #3718: Moving all default settings to .settings file

> I just noticed that I also moved the InspectionType into the .settings file, so at the moment it's specified there and in a property. Maybe the property could be defaulted to some value in the base class and be read from only if the inspection isn't present in the .settings file...

IvenBach

10:44 PM

> How easy something is to maintain has nothing to do with how many places you need to go to make a change. It's about how easy it is to find what needs to change.

@this ^

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 3963c7a8 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded

Transcript for