« first day (1954 days earlier)      last day (140 days later) » 

12:00 AM
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] 8 commits. 1 opened issue. 5 closed issues. 12 issue comments. 1431 additions. 993 deletions.
[Minesweeper] Games Played: 66, Bombs Used: 42, Moves Performed: 8500, New Users: 14
12:24 AM
@mansellan that will be the day Mug can finally accept his #IndustryDisruptor crown with pride.
Black background with white font to immediately call out any and all HN of strFooBar or intCount.
2 hours later…
2:38 AM
@IvenBach no crown, please! besides, at the rate I work on Avalon code panes.........
@IvenBach now I wonder if there would be a HN fan to like it like this
Any time I have to draw attention to a range I use Black background + white font for #IWillNotBeIgnored.
that works :)
You have any suggestion on how to address MDoerner's comment on my PR?
I spent far too much time to understand it.
3:08 AM
> Closes #4660

Using the advice from this [SO thread](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33532680/disposing-a-memory-stream-properly-wpf-image-conversion), this seems to work. However, the memory profiling seems to have paradoxically resulted in a slight memory increase, but that might be due to extraneous factors.

Suggestions welcome to positively prove this helped the matter.
@IvenBach it means the concern you're addressing with this property, isn't something that belongs on QualifiedSelection - you want that in higher level code, closer to the UI, like, in some viewmodel class
what Max was referring to, is IValueConverter
...which could be used in the xaml binding, so that you could bind directly to a QualifiedSelection property in the viewmodel
does that even make sense?
            if (!flattenedActual.SequenceEqual(flattenedExpected, comparer))
                if (equals)
                    AssertHandler.OnAssertFailed(message, methodName);

            if (!equals)
                AssertHandler.OnAssertFailed(message, methodName);
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 6bef5f63 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded
we reach the first OnAssertSucceeded, but then we continue into the !equal conditional, and thus fail.
3:23 AM
OnAssertSucceeded isn't conditional to equals
or am I missing something?
the sequence is in fact not equal
so the assert should succeed
equals is set to false, and flattenedActual.SequenceEqual is false, too, so we enter the first conditional.
what I am thinking is that we should return after the OnAssertSucceeded, not continue into the last conditional
I was going to write an unit test for the AssertHandler but there's no unit tests?
                    if (equals)
                        AssertHandler.OnAssertFailed(message, methodName);

gonna love those markups.
it's maddening :)
not sure. we still need the sequenceequals.
            if (equals && flattenedActual.SequenceEqual(flattenedExpected, comparer))

            AssertHandler.OnAssertFailed(message, methodName);
I think that's logically the same. IDK what the idea of the !equals was about; just want to be sure I wasn't missing something.
No, it's not right
3:42 AM
I don't understand the logic here... is it missing a return after the OnAssertSucceeded call?
> Closes #4246

The logic in the `NotSequenceEquals` had an extraneous logic after the success which caused it to fail. Simplified it.
..... FML
this really needs UTs.
I guess nobody wrote it because nobody know how to handle something that's to be used from VBA.
^ now should be better.
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 1cb41fc9 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded
4:07 AM
Thanks for the answer Mug. I knew stuffing a new property there wasn't right. Copied what what was already there to get started.
1) Make it work. Done.
2) Make it right. WIP.
3) Make it fast. ToDo.
4:27 AM
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 84f3096c on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded
2 hours later…
7:08 AM
> I went with an additional, conditionally-enabled checkbox instead of the dropdown suggested in #4964. The prompt will now mention the current/local version, the remote/latest version, whether that's a release or pre-release build, why the message is showing, and how to make it stop showing, while clarifying that nothing will be automatically downloaded or installed. !image The new setting...
is only enabled if the original version check setting is checked: !image The new setting being a bool, it defaults to false without any effort towards making it that way.
May be AWOL for a bit. TLDR = life gave me more fun. Moms in hospital and not looking good. Take care pond.</iven>
@IvenBach sorry to hear - my thoughts are with you.
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit a7fb0433 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded
11 hours later…
6:41 PM
@IvenBach Hopefully your mom pulls through. Take care of family first; duck'll be here.
@IvenBach Hope she'll get well soon.
@Duga Wrong PR.
hm. It's already merged.
> Originally commented in Max's PR but this is more apropros here, even though the PR is already merged:

Just a thought. You might want to consider using some nuget package that does POCO<->XML serialization so that you can just name it `hasResult` in the POCO and it'll be just that. That would also make it easier to extend the xmldocs.
4 hours later…
10:34 PM
> Closes #5137

You are now able to clear a SearchBox with a key press, not just a button press, by using the Esc key. See example below. This applies to the Code Explorer, To-Do Explorer and the Inspections window.

> Finished! Sorry that took so long. Tried to start work on this issue a few days ago, but couldn't get the solution to build in Visual Studio 2019. Works fine in Visual Studio 17 though. Anyway, this was nice to do - it's been a while since I've touched WPF!
10:47 PM
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit bed9ac58 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build failed
11:08 PM
> Thanks! The build failure seems to be a strange fluke. We will need to give AV a swift kick in the rear to verify it is just a fluke.
11:56 PM
Update: was a terminal injury and death was inevitable. I was fortunate enough to be on the best of terms with Mom last time we talked. Life’s about relationships with others. Not things. Thanks for the support all.

« first day (1954 days earlier)      last day (140 days later) »