« first day (2675 days earlier)      last day (505 days later) » 

Duga
Duga
12:02 AM
REFRESH!
[Minesweeper] 59 Games Played. 43 Bombs Used. 8135 Moves Performed. 9 New Users
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] 9 issue comments
 
 
8 hours later…
QHarr
QHarr
8:12 AM
Hi, A little while ago I stopped by to have a chat about the my recommending RD for install at my new workplace. Sadly, and very much to my surprise, it the executable failed the security review. The stage is failed at was when the file hash was run through a couple of online services: `c7b090195d227d33e7dc437bbd8a4c5d539cabbe3af2ff95bf2a99c2866a6545
Rubberduck.Setup.2.5.2.5958-pre.exe` report result: https://www.hybrid-analysis.com/sample/c7b090195d227d33e7dc437bbd8a4c5d539cabbe3af2ff95bf2a99c2866a6545
The full report was a bit OTT in my, non expert, opinion, pointing more to the behaviour of RD as being suspicious e.g. see the MITRE attack section within the Falcon Sandbox Report. I asked, given the number of points raised what I should focus on. Security said that I should at the very least make you (the developers) aware that there are 3 AV vendors currently listing RD as malware :-(
I am not sure whether my telling you this is helpful but perhaps getting the AV vendors to clear RD's same (so-to-speak) would be a good thing. I love using RD, and have used without issue for very many years, as you know.
 
 
1 hour later…
M.Doerner
M.Doerner
9:28 AM
@QHarr Prereleases are generally first considered to be malware by several AV vendors on the basis that the application is uncommon, i.e. not installed on a lot of systems their AV is installed on.
Oh wow, the report complains that the installer reads the system language.
I will have a short look at it once I am at my machine again. The full report cannot be displayed on mobile.
 
QHarr
QHarr
9:44 AM
@M.Doerner Yeah, why I think some of it is ridiculous.
Some of it reads like...... your add-in makes API calls ergo malicious!
@M.Doerner Good to know. I think one reported it as a trojan.
The stable release seems to fail as well :-(
 
 
5 hours later…
Duga
Duga
3:09 PM
> This PR accomplishes a portion of the opportunities identified by #5844. The changes modify `RenameRefactoring's` default behavior to qualify all external references of a renamed declaration.

If this default is acceptable, then it can lead to less restrictive rename conflict detection logic since any rename collisions in external modules would be eliminated.
 
Duga
Duga
3:34 PM
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 5a4c5c82 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded
 
 
4 hours later…
Duga
Duga
8:01 PM
 
Duga
Duga
8:20 PM
> Closes #5087
Closes #5805

This PR changes the annotation scoping rules, again.
All primary rules, i.e. what is allowed where, stay the same. The difference is that annotations are now scoped to a _logical_ line instead of a _physical_ line. With this change, it is now possible to annotate everything in a module. In particular, the `IgnoreOnceQuickFix` now works for all results relating to some content of a module.

To facilitate the new scoping rules, this PR introduces the `LogicalLine
 
M.Doerner
M.Doerner
8:41 PM
Looking at the analysis leading to the assumption that RD is malicious, it did not like three things.
First, it does not like that three AV vendors think RD is malicious. I actually have never head of those before: SecureAge APEX, Cynet and Cybereason.
 
Duga
Duga
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 154eba68 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded
 
M.Doerner
M.Doerner
Actually, there is also a repors of a vendor called Zillya!, classifying the process launched by the installer as adware.
Second, it does not like that we write some executable (temporary files) into %ALLUSERSPROFILE%\Rubberduck, which is below %ProgramData%.
Third, it does not like that the installer modifies executable (temporary) files.
I guess, the second and third are a consequence of how InnoSetup works.
Ah, actually, the third point is that the temporary files are run in a different process and data is passed to them from the main installer process.
 
Duga
Duga
9:25 PM
 
M.Doerner
M.Doerner
@BZngr What does the ReplaceReferencesRefactoringAction do with project qualified references?
 
BZngr
BZngr
It's been a while since introducing ReplaceReferenceRefactoringAction...So, I'd have to look into it again to answer. Still, my initial thought is that it probably does not operate on external project references since RenameRefactoring was not intended to affect external projects either(True?).
 
 
2 hours later…
BZngr
BZngr
11:17 PM
@M.Doerner TBH - hopefully I've created the scenario you have in mind: I setup a Workbook(A) Sub that references a Public Sub in Workbook(B). Renaming the Workbook(B) Sub from the Declaration (Workbook(B)) or from the Reference (Workbook(A)) changed the identifiers in both workbooks.
 
BZngr
BZngr
11:33 PM
So, I'm thinking the above test indicates that the ReplaceReferenceRefactoringAction will replace the identifier given a project qualified IdentifierReferencefrom either the declaring or a referencing project.
 
Duga
Duga
11:47 PM
[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] 1422 stars vs. [decalage2/oletools] 1745 stars
 
M.Doerner
M.Doerner
What I meant basically was the situation you describe. More precisely, the two projects should have different names and the reference in the code would be Project Name.ModuleName.MemberName. In order not to break things, the new name then needs to be Project Name.ModuleName.NewMemberName, i.e. the qualifying project still needs to be there.
 

« first day (2675 days earlier)      last day (505 days later) »