Just git branch without options.
From the main page:
With no arguments, existing branches are listed and the current branch will be highlighted with an asterisk.
#4488 should be OK other than the fact that it might also not build correctly either. At least that one has the rebuilt designers for the resx file.
Lemme try deleting me some designer files...
Yep, this is completely fuct. I'm not entirely sure how to resync these other than deleting and re-adding all of the xaml that's changed since the last build with the old csproj.
> The VbaLogger was developed and completed long before your post. It's just that because of the infrequent commits it was committed later. The author has never looked at that code at all. This is all original work.
Well, IDK if you looked at this but one thing I've wondered about - in Vogel's original PR, it was going in Infinite Recursing Loop of Doom™ until I removed this line...
but I'm wondering if we did really need that line.
It also might be having the same issue as the old csproj - the designer and xaml files aren't in sync if they've been changed, so I can't even get the old proj file to update them.
Getting there. There was one more thing I wanted to check though. I remember running across something that was claiming that the designers weren't required for the build - only for, well, the designers in VS.
> A 'Binding' cannot be set on the 'MinNumber' property of type 'NumberPicker'. A 'Binding' can only be set on a DependencyProperty of a DependencyObject.
From the disassembly:
public partial class NumberPicker : IDataErrorInfo
{
public static readonly DependencyProperty NumValueProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register("NumValue", typeof(int), typeof(NumberPicker), new UIPropertyMetadata(null));
Recall Vogel pointed out that one problem with the old format was that we would delete files from the solution system but it'd be still there in filesystem/source code
maybe it's actually a relic that we don't need anymore, IDK.
side question - @Comintern would you happen to have an idea why I can't get a red test for this?
[Test]
[Category("Inspections")]
public void IgnoresImplicitArrays()
{
const string code = @"
Sub Foo()
Dim bar As Variant
bar(1) = ""Z""
End Sub
";
var results = GetInspectionResults(code);
Assert.AreEqual(0, results.Count());
}
[Test]
[Category("Inspections")]
public void IgnoresExplicitArrays()
{
const string code = @"
Sub Foo()
Dim bar(1 To 10) As String
bar(1) = 42
End Sub
";
var results = GetInspectionResults(code);
Assert.AreEqual(0, results.Count());
}
@Comintern yup, without the IsAssignment flag (which is correct in this context)... I'll just leave it alone, but I'll give the #4485 repro code a shot
Sub test()
Dim foo As Variant
ReDim foo(1 To 10)
foo(1) = 42
End Sub
confirmed settings is borked after merging rd\next
so once Comintern pushes whatever he did to the numberpicker thingee, I can pull and confirm if that fixes ( just to confirm it will build on other machine
@MathieuGuindon TBH the resolver is a bit greek to me.
the problem was that ReDim statements in VBA can effectively declare an array, but resolver isn't picking up ReDim as statements that can create a Declaration, so ReDim foo(1 To 10) just ended up making foo an implicit Variant, with the Undeclared flag on
> If the name has no matches, then the <redim-statement> is instead interpreted as a <local- variable-declaration> with a <variable-declaration-list> declaring a resizable array with the specified name and the following rules do not apply.
Option Explicit
Sub Example()
Dim foo As Variant
Debug.Print TypeName(foo) 'Empty
ReDim foo(0 To 5) As Long
Debug.Print TypeName(foo) 'Long()
ReDim foo(0 To 5) As String
Debug.Print TypeName(foo) 'String()
End Sub
If the redimensioned variable was originally declared as an automatic instantiation variable
(section 2.5.1), each dependent variable of the redimensioned variable remains an automatic
instantiation variable after execution of the <redim-statement>.
IMO ReDim is a code smell. if you don't know how many elements you'll need before you start populating an array, you probably shouldn't be using an array in the first place.
<ResourcesGenerator
ResourceFiles="@(MainEmbeddedFiles)"
OutputPath="$(IntermediateOutputPath)"
OutputResourcesFile="$(IntermediateOutputPath)$(_ResourceNameInMainAssembly)"
Condition="'@(MainEmbeddedFiles)' != ''">
<!-- Put the generated files in item FileWrites so that they can be cleaned up appropriately in a next Rebuild -->
<Output ItemName="FileWrites" TaskParameter="OutputResourcesFile" />
</ResourcesGenerator>
ooooh facepalm ... your princess is in another castle - the inspection to fix isn't AssignmentNotUsed (well aside from ignoring explicit arrays)... it's UnassignedVariableUsage
11>C:\GitHub\Rubberduck2\Rubberduck.Core\UI\UnitTesting\TestExplorerControl.xaml.cs(55): warning CA1063: Microsoft.Design : Modify 'TestExplorerControl.Dispose()' so that it calls Dispose(true), then calls GC.SuppressFinalize on the current object instance ('this' or 'Me' in Visual Basic), and then returns.
Comintern, i'm just curious - have you seen this particular error before?
> Severity Code Description Project File Line Suppression State Error Custom tool PublicResXFileCodeGenerator failed to produce an output for input file 'About\AboutUI.cs.resx' but did not log a specific error. Rubberduck.Resources C:\GitHub\Rubberduck\Rubberduck\Rubberduck.Resources\About\AboutUI.cs.resx 1
Got 50 of them as a consequence of my derpitude trying to build with bad code. Annoyingly, those don't clear after a clean + build.