« first day (2051 days earlier)      last day (280 days later) » 

9:05 PM
Are we continuing with _fooBar for private backing fields or moving towards fooBar where _ is omitted?
 
if only I knew :D
the more modern parts of the codebase seem to point to moving towards without underscore, but ...
 
...I have a weird attachment to that underscore I think
 
I personally am way more used to no underscore, so unless all the other fields already there are prefixed, I'll probably make new fields without it
 
Then there is private Foo {set; get;} - or is it private foo {set; get;}?
 
9:16 PM
I don't think we have private properties
it's just private Foo foo;
 
chooses not to make eye contact
 
maybe public Foo Foo { get; private set; }
 
The advantage of private properties is for objects where you can instantiate them outside of the ctors.
 
properties and methods would be PascalCase regardless of accessibility
 
9:37 PM
@Duga meh, we still got some 2-digit issues...
@this uhm, there is? it's the little drop-down box on WPF windows when running in debug. Unless it's Enterprise only?
 
except we don't have any WPF windows :)
FWIW it's also in VS 2015 Pro
 
ah yeah, it only attaches to windows, not controls. bummer.
it's also in community, just checked
 
the one I'm looking at is Toolbars.xaml. No designer
so I'm flying blind there.
 
Community is basically Pro minus the license to build commercial
 
I think it's relating to the submenu when you click on a toolbar button.
hmm I wonder if Snoop would have helped.
 
9:45 PM
@this that's the original resource dictionary... originally meant to standardize toolbar styling across all TWs
 
probably not if it can't track dynamically shown elements
@MathieuGuindon In this case, I'm extracting all colors stuff into its own xaml
 
sweet!
 
not knowing where it's used makes it hard for me to give it meaningful name, hence the questions about glyphpanel
 
@MathieuGuindon there's stuff around profiling, hot-code replacements and general diagnostic tooling that's in professional, but not community
 
ah, gtk
 
9:47 PM
Code Lens is also a Pro feature and not in community
 
@this Not sure how much a rapper would know about WPF...
 
@this I think R# XAML tooling can help with that
 
my 2019 vm doesn't have R#....
@mansellan lol. Not that d-bag. The one that's basically a Spy++ counterpart for WPF
 
lol
been learning about the new win10 installer format today (MSIX). Pretty cool, no good for RD though.
 
@this any idea why SSMS is giving me this when I expand Programmability/Types/User-Defined Table Types?
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
------------------------------

Lock request time out period exceeded. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 1222)

For help, click: go.microsoft.com/…

------------------------------
BUTTONS:

OK
------------------------------
 
9:51 PM
uhm, that's worrying
 
you odn't have a open transaction, right?
 
nope
also this is the new TVF:
create function dbo.NormalizeSizes (@values SizedUnits)
returns @result table (
		 SourceRowId int not null primary key
		,SizeIndex int not null
		,Units int not null
		,unique(SourceRowId, SizeIndex)
)
begin

	with split as (
		select
			 v.SourceRowId
			,[1] = substring(v.Units,1,4)
			,[2] = substring(v.Units,5,4)
			,[3] = substring(v.Units,9,4)
			,[4] = substring(v.Units,13,4)
			,[5] = substring(v.Units,17,4)
			,[6] = substring(v.Units,21,4)
			,[7] = substring(v.Units,25,4)
			,[8] = substring(v.Units,29,4)
 
isn;t there a sys view for locks?
(not a dba)
 
yes; google system catalog view sql server or dynamic management view sql server to see the list of all views avaialble
I think you want dm_exec_locks but my memory is iffy
it's also easy to just check DBCC OPENTRAN
 
I'm so glad my current gig limits my SQL exposure to the odd CREATE TABLE
far too much voodoo in sql
 
9:54 PM
@MathieuGuindon did you mean to convert into a iTVF?
 
is that what I just did?
 
nope still mTVF
 
I meant to make it set-based
 
basically, if you do insert into @table, that's mTVF
iTVF is basically like a view... no procedural statements; only the SQL & parameters, that's it.
no BEGIN/END either.
 
but then what do I return if I just select?
need another type for the return table?
 
9:57 PM
npe
just return that result
e.g. ... RETURNS TABLE AS WITH (...) SELECT ...;
 
ah
like this?
create function dbo.NormalizeSizes (@values SizedUnits)
returns table as
	return
	with split as (
		select
			 v.SourceRowId
			,[1] = substring(v.Units,1,4)
			,[2] = substring(v.Units,5,4)
			,[3] = substring(v.Units,9,4)
			,[4] = substring(v.Units,13,4)
			,[5] = substring(v.Units,17,4)
			,[6] = substring(v.Units,21,4)
			,[7] = substring(v.Units,25,4)
			,[8] = substring(v.Units,29,4)
			,[9] = substring(v.Units,33,4)
			,[10]= substring(v.Units,37,4)
			,[11]= substring(v.Units,41,4)
			,[12]= substring(v.Units,45,4)
seems the return is required
 
yes I think so
i'm aircoding!
and that is then used to insert into a temp table with indices?
 
huh, #til that .frx files are completely different formats between VBA and VB6
 
really?
why?!?
 
VBA seems to use a (slightly modified) COM SF format, VB6 uses a (slightly modified) RES format
 
10:01 PM
both don't even follow the official formats either?
 
no idea...
 
:facepalm:
 
@this they're close
maybe some preamble. analysing now.
 
Still, if it's "slightly modified", that's lame-ass
 
10:02 PM
but I guess 90s MSFT wasn't too big on standards & consistency....
They were too busy playing Civilization with the rest of us peons.
 
lol
I guess the difference might originate in the different storage layers. VBA uses IStorage, VB6 uses actual files.
still, would have been nice if they'd used different extensions...
maybe .ufx for userforms
so - they were consistent where they shouldn't have been!
 
They're consistently inconsistent.
 
@this I was thinking of just joining on that rather than cross apply
 
That said, we still can peek at the header of the files (they have one, right?) and determining whether it's VBA's frx or VB6's frx.
@MathieuGuindon Yep with a iTVF, you can indeed now join it. My only uncertainty is whether the optimizer won't be dumb and evaluate the iTVF more than once. You can always test and see
 
10:11 PM
it should do the right thing but when queries get complex enough, it's liable to go :derp:
 
@this yeah, just gotta try and work out how they're laid out
 
we really need to abstract the file handling.
 
hm why has the create function statement been running for 2 minutes now
wtf
3 minutes now
wth
 
uh, the fact that you can't open the type folder and you're stuck is very strongly indication that you do have an open transaction.
 
10:13 PM
check DBCC OPENTRAN to find the offender and kill it.
 
well well well
kill 53
 
you did verify that 53 is you and not some random snot?
 
lol dbcc told me
 
good. I've been there before and I usually just want to be sure I'm not actually offing one of my clients. Makes for a fun phone call.
so I was working in my application then it suddenly blew up, throwing up random errors. I restarted and it start working again. What do you think happened?
 
woot, function created
the UDTT was created as part of the trx
was only missing readonly in the function's arg list
 
10:18 PM
yeah, that is a annoying detail I always forget. Esp. considering that there's no such thing as readwrite table-valued parameter.
 
hm wait hold on, I do need to populate a table first
 
(it's there because Joke Celko SQL Standard sez so.)
Yes, you do.
 
ugh
so that'll be a full table scan taking id and f22 from YYF641SAV
 
That is unavoidable.
Unless you can actually filter the id somehow.
 
		declare @bucketsIssued table (
			 id int not null primary key
			,Units nvarchar(80)
		);
		insert into @bucketsIssued
		select id, f22 from Staging.dbo.YYF641SAV;
 
10:22 PM
but to parse the f22, you must scan the entire set and normalize. No way around it.
 
and now I can just pass @bucketsIssued to my TVF
 
yeah
I also assume you have to do it again for the ordered & shipped
 
yeah
but at least there's no cross apply anymore
 
hopefully it does makes a difference. If not, you may need temp tables so that you cn index the normalized contents to help cut down on the work on joining the normalized data from the temp table to whatever you're joining.
 
the join is on an int PK, shouldn't be too fussy
scrolls to top of procedure, notices begin transaction ... comments it out
the moment of truth
Msg 137, Level 15, State 2, Line 208
Must declare the scalar variable "@etlStart".
Msg 137, Level 15, State 2, Line 226
Must declare the scalar variable "@etlStart".
Msg 137, Level 15, State 2, Line 239
Must declare the scalar variable "@etlStart".
Msg 137, Level 15, State 2, Line 254
Must declare the scalar variable "@etlStart".
lol
ok now what
Msg 206, Level 16, State 2, Line 73
Operand type clash: table is incompatible with SizedUnits
Msg 206, Level 16, State 2, Line 114
Operand type clash: table is incompatible with SizedUnits
Msg 206, Level 16, State 2, Line 143
Operand type clash: table is incompatible with SizedUnits
oh, missing a not null constraint
no, it's still complaining
ugh
CREATE TYPE [dbo].[SizedUnits] AS TABLE(
	[SourceRowId] [int] NOT NULL,
	[Units] [nvarchar](200) NOT NULL,
	PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
	[SourceRowId] ASC
)WITH (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF)
)
GO
oh, clustered
 
10:33 PM
is the nvarchar(200) also correct?
 
		declare @bucketsIssued table (
			 SourceRowId int not null primary key clustered
			,Units nvarchar(200) not null
		);
		insert into @bucketsIssued
		select id, f22 from Staging.dbo.YYF641SAV;
it's technically 120 chars too wide, but shouldn't matter
 
no
 
declare @bucketsIssued SizedUnits;
 
DECLARE @bucketsIssued dbo.SizedUnits
 
aaaah
bingo
 
10:36 PM
I guess you nwo have to wait to see how exactly glacial it is. :)
 
got an execution plan for the @readyUnits insert within 10 seconds
but the ready units is just a count aggregate
 
be interesting to see whether making them memory optimized / natively compiled makes significant difference.
my hunch is that this is a very good candidate for native compilation
 
(4303 row(s) affected)

(1 row(s) affected)

(362622 row(s) affected)
^ within 2 minutes
that's already at least 48 minutes faster than yesterday
 
Nice!
 
yesterday after 51 minutes all I had was "(4303 row(s) affected)"
 
10:39 PM
yeah - mTVF really hurts.
 
4 minutes
 
wouldn't surprise me if it was actually re-executing the TVF several times for same row X for each row in the table
(the original mTVF, I mean)
Either way, it does sounds like you just bumped the speed setting from glacial to 3-toed sloth. ;)
 
gotta go
@this thanks a bunch!
 
11:10 PM
 
11:22 PM
> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5357?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> :exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request head (`Issue5346_Extract_interface_creates_private_classes@664c7d9`). [Click here to learn what that means](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/error-reference#section-missing-head-commit).
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 664c7d99 on unknown branch: AppVeyor was unable to build non-mergeable pull request
BUILD FAILURE!
 
^ Any ducks have an idea of root cause and are willing to breadcrumb me to it?
 
non-mergeable apparently
conflict in RubberduckUI.resx
 
:derp: I didn't fetch from upstream or run unit tests locally.
Besides that. The behavior not honoring the public class and allowing a private interface to still be extracted.
 
11:41 PM
mumble mumble github.com/IvenBach/Rubberduck/blob/… doesn't export a file. for unit tests.
 
@this Sunspots. Always blame sunspots.
 
> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5357?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> :exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request head (`Issue5346_Extract_interface_creates_private_classes@79540a4`). [Click here to learn what that means](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/error-reference#section-missing-head-commit).
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.
 
11:56 PM
@IvenBach To be able to test the refactoring, you will have to use an abstraction to do add the class via a file.
 

« first day (2051 days earlier)      last day (280 days later) »