@this bear in mind though, there will be no net core 4. it's core 3, core 3 LTS, then core 5... They don't want to confuse people by having both core and fx at v4.
so, reading between their lines, core 5 is when fx is officially v.Last...
and realistically, v5 is probably when RD needs to seriously start eyeing up the jump
> Is this the reason that renaming a procedure either manually or with RD breaks any references to that procedure from Excel buttons, shapes, ActiveXcontrols, etc.?
> If Rubberduck doesn't know x is a control, then it can't help you with renaming the related handlers. The vanilla VBIDE perhaps knows but is too lazy to care. 😆
In general, I like the new MS. But I don't like the control-freakery. They absolutely did not have to rip Aero out, they could have left us the choice. But they want to be Apple, and Apple doesn't do choices.
And they're still at it. Every UV on this topic gets closed as a dupe, pointing to a wont-fix:
> To clarify - we have plan in the works to make RD know so it might be possible to help with renaming the handler. However, being a VBIDE add-in, we can't have a complete visibility into how the host references the controls which may require you to make changes in host (example renaming of a control might break an expression used in Access macro or in an custom ActiveX control using expression rather than VBA). In those cases, we just encourage to not write "code" in those properties but rather
I'm being flippant of course. I take your point that good UX is often about removing choice to provide a workflow. But I don't think wanting to select a UI theme is unreasonable...
> So in Excel for example, I might use the Worksheet_SelectionChange event instead of setting the OnAction property of a Shape to check when a certain object is clicked?
> @CHI-IS-B I wouldn't say you should change your ways. Setting a shape's OnAction to some macro is perfectly idiomatic, and not assigning a macro to a shape has user-facing UX consequences, such as the mouse pointer not turning into a hand to indicate clickability - no, IMO the real way to do this is to somehow probe the host document for controls/shapes, just like we do for a UserForm... even if it means host-specific logic needs to be implemented for it.
which means I have no way of guaranteeing that the input will be same type - not sure if VBA will already have cast before sending to me or I'll get them as-is.
the test is failing because I'm basically assigning a string to an expression expecting an int.
I can put in an explicit Expression.Convert, I guess but that might blow up if it's not convertible.
RE: that issue above --- I was thinking about expressions embedded in an OnAction or the equivalent. It's kind of those stuff that I wouldn't want anyone doing. A simple name resolving to a method on a standard module is reasonable enough.
good question. I don't have a test for this case yet.
in Access you can choose between expressions or event handlers
some get lured because when you use expressions instead of events, it is easy to copy'n'paste without having to program that control's event, or to call a common function using parameters that takes from the context (e.g. current control as a parameter)
Personally I hate them because it only means more hiding places that VBIDE doesn't even know about and is too apathetic/lazy to look
Due to the help of the community here I ended up with a working code that serves its purpose.
The code itself compares two sheets and then creates a report file with the differences between the sheets.
In want to add a user-form on a separate Excel file. It should have two inputs.
Path of the ...
> The inconclusive test result "[expected] and [actual] values are not the same type." gives no additional information, making it very hard to identify what went wrong in a test where there are more than one assert.
Ideally it would show the values (and types) of expected and actual, but if this is difficult then it would be ok if we could simply have the assert description show so that one can easily identify which assert failed.
Straight from my 7 year old to you, exactly what it says on the cover:
What is the hottest thing in the universe?
To make it Stack Exchange-friendly, I'll add the following caveats:
it should be bounded, as in an actual compact object, or class of objects, or part of an object
it should b...
> **Rubberduck version information** Version 2.4.1.4819 OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.15063.0, x64 Host Product: Microsoft Office 2016 x64 Host Version: 16.0.4873.1000 Host Executable: MSACCESS.EXE
**Description** A `UseMeaningfulNames` inspection popped up for a parameter on the 2nd line of a multi-line procedure declaration. I selected the `Ignore Once` quick fix and nothing happened. I took a look at the log thinking this was another occurrance of #5085 and that I'd have a full log
@this Q-Ship is the name applied to a fast car that looks bone stock. As opposed to the cars that look like they pillaged a Pep Boys (or 2), but can barely get out of their own way.
> **Rubberduck version information** Version 2.4.1.4819 OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.15063.0, x64 Host Product: Microsoft Office 2016 x64 Host Version: 16.0.4873.1000 Host Executable: MSACCESS.EXE
**Description** I have a variable that's _assigned_ but never again referenced, but no inspection result.
**To Reproduce** ``` Public Function UpdateTableLinks() As Boolean
Const CONNECTION_TYPE As String = "ODBC;" Const CONNECTION_DESCRIPTION As String = "Description=Development
OK, I'm starting to think it's intentional now... I still can't DL the installer exe files from GH, and they've blocked Google Drive (and basically all file sharing sites).
@23fc9a62-56de-47fb-97b4-737890 yeah, I know. It's like TSA - it's all theater. Anyone determined enough will get around whatever security measures they implement.
I was annoyed and determined enough to bypass whatever simple blocks they decided to put in place.
Besides, I need to learn how to compile the project if I'm gonna work on it, so I'll go with that route in the future. This was a "because I can" pass.
> The problem here is that you can't just insert the annotation manually, because IIRC we're not currently scoping Annotations to logical lines. Note that I might be wrong here.
If we're **not** scoping them by physical lines, the correct fix here would be to insert it before the logical line instead of just warning and bailing out.
That's why they developed the whole process of testing the airplanes from the blueprint to the production rollout and had test pilots risking their lives to develop the prototype. But they always were verifying it against the laws of physics all the meanwhile.
> Actually, @Vogel612 , you can insert the inspection manually (so long as you do it before the first physical line of code). I did so on my code that raised this issue.
> Then there is no reason for this to be [status-bydesign]. Instead we should just inser the annotation at the appropriate location (before the logical line)
> Actually, @Vogel612 , you can insert the inspection manually (so long as you do it before the first _physical_ line of code). I did so on my code that raised this issue.
Well, maybe you can do it if you insert it in the logical middle somewhere, but I didn't try that (and it shouldn't work because you can't continue after a commented line continuation, I don't think).
@Vogel612 tbh I'm not sure the Max8 jumbo engine being misplaced wrt its weight vs its position under the wing has nothing to do with physics crashing it
remember in this case, the software for airplane must accurately model the real world. If it doesn't, then it's going to crash the plane that is otherwise airworthy and safe.
@this i know it as q car. reason is that beyond a certain (heavy) level of modifications, a uk car is (was?) no longer allowed to keep its original registration number with a date-based letter. so it gets issued a new one which starts with a Q.
@this that's the thing: Max8 isn't airworthy and safe without the software that compensates for Boeing's "hey let's debalance the aircraft because budgets instead of making a bigger plane for the bigger engine"
@MathieuGuindon Everything, yet nothing. Boeing wrote the MCAS software to accommodate the difference in physics between the 737-Classic/NG and -Max so that for the pilot, they were supposed to fly the same. They were trying to shortcut the certification process to continue using the 737 name and current training instead of having to spend years type-certifying a whole new aircraft and developing all new training.
@FreeMan see, that ties back to the point I was trying to make earlier, if you're constructing a model, you have to verify the model. If it's constructed in abstract, you're going to find out that it's always flawed or incomplete
MCAS should have never been needed. Boeing should have sucked it up and get a brand new plane certified instead of patching up a proven model with a supersized engine
When we were building airplanes and flying it by stick, we got to see quickly if it was airworthy because we only had one model --- the laws of physics.
but when we start to write software and thus adding layers of abstraction, well, it will leak.
@this which are still usually calculated using abstractions, because nobody wants to solve multidimensional integrals for a "simple" drag force calculation
That is true and there is still a difference between calculating for a drag force vs. correcting for unstable aircraft and fooling the pilot driving it.
> Annotations are speed by _physical_ line. If you insert it above the logical line, it will simply not do anything to stuff below the first physical line.
You cannot insert an annotation in the middle of a logical line because it turns everything following it into a comment.
> Annotations are scoped by _physical_ line. If you insert it above the logical line, it will simply not do anything to stuff below the first physical line.
You cannot insert an annotation in the middle of a logical line because it turns everything following it into a comment.
TBF, I did note that it shouldn't work by inserting it in the middle of the logical line somewhere...
@MathieuGuindon Agreed. However, MCAS probably would have been fine except that Boeing was following the letter of the law regulation, not the spirit. They sent out notifications and alterations to the suggested training, but didn't emphasize enough how it worked and made the MAX different than the NG. Because of that, when it failed, the pilots didn't know what was happening and how to counteract it (i.e. shut off the faulty MCAS and fly by hand).
If they'd made a bigger deal out of the MCAS and had highlighted the training differences required, there probably wouldn't have been 2 crashes and 400+ aircraft sitting in storage.
The 737 has been so successful for them, they didn't want anything to appear to upset the apple cart. If there were significant enough differences, airlines like Southwest, which exclusively flies the 737 wouldn't have bought into it. They save a ton on common parts, maintenance and training.
Now they've done gone and shot themselves in das foot.
> An attacker could potentially pivot, Santamarta says, from the in-flight entertainment system to the CIS/MS to send commands to far more sensitive components that control the plane's safety-critical systems, including its engine, brakes, and sensors.
Straight from my 7 year old to you, exactly what it says on the cover:
What is the hottest thing in the universe?
To make it Stack Exchange-friendly, I'll add the following caveats:
it should be bounded, as in an actual compact object, or class of objects, or part of an object
it should b...
VBA Rubberducking
VBA Rubberducking