I know why there's so many false positives with assignment/non-assignment.
and that one's going to be a bitch and a half
work in progress:
private bool _skipIdentifier;
public override void EnterLetStmt(VBAParser.LetStmtContext context)
{
// we're handling involved identifiers here.
_skipIdentifier = true;
VBAParser.AmbiguousIdentifierContext assignmentTarget;
var leftSide = context.implicitCallStmt_InStmt();
// simple cases first:
var procedureOrArrayCall = leftSide.iCS_S_ProcedureOrArrayCall();
if (procedureOrArrayCall != null)
I'm going to end up extracting methods from this, to return the assignmentTarget context
but the bottom line is, this:
private bool IsAssignmentContext(RuleContext context)
{
var parent = context.Parent;
return parent.Parent.Parent is VBAParser.SetStmtContext // object reference assignment
|| parent.Parent.Parent is VBAParser.LetStmtContext // value assignment
|| parent is VBAParser.ForNextStmtContext // treat For loop as an assignment
// todo: verify that we're not missing anything here (likely)
;
}
...is way over-simplifying it. it's only handling the "simple case" like a = b
ok I'm starting to have a bit of a clue about the false positives...
Rubberduck Code Inspections - 07/04/2015 11:43:09 PM
71 issues found.
Warning: Function 'CompareTo' returns no value - Foundation.IComparable, line 3
Warning: Function 'StringFormat' returns no value - Foundation.StringHelpers, line 20
Warning: Function 'IView_SelectedItem' returns no value - Foundation.SimpleView, line 220
Warning: Function 'IView_Model' returns no value - Foundation.SimpleView, line 212
Warning: Function 'IPresenter_View' returns no value - Foundation.CustomerGroupsPresenter, line 226
IComparable isn't implemented anywhere, so Rubberduck has no way of telling CompareTo should be ignored as an interface method - that one's fine.
StringFormatdoes return a value, but it seems this line is breaking the parser:
...which is a problem, but not the problem I'm after right now
NewItem not returning anything is an actual code issue - embarassing, but useful here.
and then EVERY SINGLE ONE of the other inspection results are interface implementation methods. some aren't implemented and actually don't return a value, but most are implemented and do return a value.
I have a lead
that's not a bug in the tree listener, it's a bug in the freakin' inspection!
Rubberduck Code Inspections - 07/04/2015 11:58:04 PM
3 issues found.
Warning: Function 'CompareTo' returns no value - Foundation.IComparable, line 3
Warning: Function 'StringFormat' returns no value - Foundation.StringHelpers, line 20
Warning: Function 'NewItem' returns no value - Foundation.RepsRepository, line 6
bingo
copy-pasted crap code from the disabled/deferred ProcedureNotUsedInspection though
but damn this is soothing
hmm the regex isn't breaking the parser, Code Explorer is showing both members here
Public Sub DoSomething()
Dim pattern As String
pattern = "{({{)*(\w+)(,-?\d+)?(:[^}]+)?}(}})*"
DoSomethingElse
End Sub
Public Sub DoSomethingElse()
End Sub
oh wait, ...now the NonReturningFunctionInspection has ...false negatives!
I developed a script for the company I work for in order to extract data from SAP (CJ74) and analyze the data.
One particular issue I am finding is that for any data sets which have over 1000 lines, it struggles to execute the section of code below, therefore I am searching for answers.
This ...
Well the issue is real, it's just a little "LostFocus" thing. Config changes save fine, only the last change won't be picked up as a change if the dropdown still has focus... but that only because we x-out of the dialog to save
> An un-handled error is raised when opening the VBE of a shared macro enabled workbook or trying to use Rubberduck's features. Shared workbooks cannot have their VBA code read or written, which is causing the error. For the same reason we don't need Rubberduck to work in a shared workbook. However, this case should be handled more gracefully than the scary .NET error. Either just exit silently or raise a "You can't use Rubberduck in a shared workbook error". Steps to reproduce with...
Rubberduck installed: 1. Create a Workbook 1. Add a Code Module to the VB Project 1. Save as Macro Enabled Workbook (or binary) 1. Share Workbook 1. Close and re-open workbook 1. Open VBE. 1. Receive Unhandled Error Can't Perform operation since the project is protected. Details are at the bottom. 2. Opening TODO items or Code Inspections will re-raise the error. ``` See the end of this message for details on invoking just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box....
************** Exception Text ************** System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException (0x800AC471): Can't perform operation since the project is protected. at Microsoft.Vbe.Interop._VBProject.get_VBComponents() at Rubberduck.UI.CodeExplorer.CodeExplorerDockablePresenter.<AddModuleNodesAsync>d__15.MoveNext() in c:\Users\Christopher\Source\Repos\Rubberduck\RetailCoder.VBE\UI\CodeExplorer\CodeExplorerDockablePresenter.cs:line 107...
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task) at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task) at Rubberduck.UI.CodeExplorer.CodeExplorerDockablePresenter.<>c__DisplayClassd.<<AddProjectNodes>b__c>d__f.MoveNext() in c:\Users\Christopher\Source\Repos\Rubberduck\RetailCoder.VBE\UI\CodeExplorer\CodeExplorerDockablePresenter.cs:line 97...
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.AsyncMethodBuilderCore.<ThrowAsync>b__4(Object state) ************** Loaded Assemblies ************** mscorlib Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.0.30319.34209 built by: FX452RTMGDR CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll...
built by: FX452RTMGDR CodeBase: file:///C:/windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll...
************** JIT Debugging ************** To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this application or computer (machine.config) must have the jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section. The application must also be compiled with debugging enabled. For example: <configuration> <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" /> </configuration> When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer...
Basically what you are asking is what can we do about this
_ExemptEndpoints.Add(Tuple.[New](Of String, Method)(ep1, method.GET))
_ExemptEndpoints.Add(Tuple.[New](Of String, Method)(ep1, method.POST))
_ExemptEndpoints.Add(Tuple.[New](Of String, Method)(ep1, method.PUT))
_ExemptEn...
> Opening the Options dialog and immediately closing it without making changes prompts that "Changes to setting will take affect next time the application is started." This implies to the user that something has been changed, better behavior would be to only prompt if any settings were altered.
Also, "affect" should be "effect", but this doesn't warrant an issue by itself.
@ducky Doing homework programming assignments I see... Kind of sucks you have to go through all the basics that you already know instead of getting to the "fun stuff"
(I use the term "basics" pretty loosely because I'm still learning the basics; spent too much time with SQL for my own good)
> Just so the changes are documented... - [ ] add top and bottom panels, to match design of other (more recent) dialogs - [ ] add an instructions label to top panel, changing with the selected settings group - [ ] add "Ok" and "Cancel" buttons in the bottom panel; only save changes when "Ok" is clicked (see #366, will also fix #364) - [ ] add ducky icon - [ ] add icons for the nodes in the tree view - [ ] make the grid views less eye-irritant if possible (ugh I'd want this dialog made with...
> If the Microsoft provided MouseWheelFix add-in (support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/837910) is installed, the Code Inspections and ToDo Explorer will scroll simultaneously with the VBE code window when the mouse wheel is used and the Rubberduck window doesn't have focus. This may be an issue with the MouseWheelFix add-in, but the Rubberduck windows should really be eating the event. Steps to replicate (Office 2010): - Download and install the MouseWheelFix add-in. - Click inside the VBE...
code window. - Move the mouse cursor over a Code Inspections or ToDo Explorer window with a scroll bar present, but do not click to give the window focus. - Scroll with the mouse wheel.
2 questions: 1) is ByValue more efficient than ByRef?
2) if so, can they be sorted in the listing so the by value messages always come up before the implicitly messages so fixing the first will "fix" both?
I do understand the difference between the two, I'm just wondering if explicitly passing by value would be better than by ref?
@FreeMan good question. the idea behind that can be passed by value is that if a parameter isn't assigned, then it doesn't need to be passed by reference. there was no performance consideration in the thought process that lead to this...
perhaps objects passed by reference shouldn't trigger that inspection?
@Mat'sMug I would think that ByRef is better performance wise, since you (or the computer, as it were) wouldn't have to allocate memory then copy the value into it, then pass the pointer to the new memory location.
@Mat'sMug True, but there's some level of trust and authority that comes with making those suggestions, so some consideration has to be made to the impact making the suggested change will have.
and I keep telling people to use explicit modifiers all the time, because VB6/VBA has them backwards vs. every other language out there, so it's easily confusing when you're context-switching between VB.NET/C#/Java and VBA
> @retailcoder we could catch it and eat it in the NativeWindows code. There are other hacks in there that make the dockable windows work properly. I'm just wondering how it would work if the add-in isn't installed. We need to verify that any fix doesn't affect users without the add-in.
It would also be nifty if the Code Inspections list were sortable by clicking a column header. It would make it easier to knock out all the ByRef implicitly errors.
it would also help me get rid of the false positive I'm getting for "variable 'description' is never assigned" when it's actually passed ByRef to a function that assigns it via its outDescription parameter...
@RubberDuck say you right-click on parameter foo and say "Find all usages" - would you want to see what values you're passing to it? currently you'd only get the named parameter calls
now picture you have foo and bar like so: Function DoSomething(ByVal foo As Integer, ByVal bar As Integer) and you want to make it DoSomething(ByVal bar As Integer, ByVal foo As Integer).
you need to know, at every call site, what value is passed into which parameter
@Mat'sMug I understand. Once I do that, I have to click the "fix" button twice to get it to actually fix it. If I single click the issue line, it takes only one click on the "fix" button to make the change.
I think @RubberDuck sync'd it with the inspection results from the toolwindow, so the two should report the same issues and refresh together... I think
eesh.. I've never learned C#++♭.net anything, but I do recognize the syntax...
Interesting, the Code Inspection toolbar does seem to have errors sorted by 'type'. I'm going through all the 'could be passed by value' errors, and haven't seen a single 'ByRef implicit' one in a while, even though there are plenty of opportunities.
I think only the grid re-sorts them - the toolbar would have them [un]sorted by whatever order the inspections run (they're running asynchronously, and discovered via reflection, so the order they run in is unreliable)
discovering new implemented inspections with reflection means that whatever class implements IInspection will be automagically picked up as such; it makes development much easier :)
@RubberDuck Yup, that's been my world for the last several years. Got to do an IT job, but since you're not 'one of them' they don't want to trust you with the tools and access...
I needed to find entries that only have one product, in an invoice detail type of table with a composite key, to calculate an average price
SELECT
AVG(Cont.Equipment_Retail)
FROM STAR_Contracts AS Cont
INNER JOIN STAR_Products AS Prod
ON Cont.Contract_Number = Prod.Contract_Number
AND COUNT(Prod.Contract_Number) = 1
WHERE Prod.Product_ID = '1018'
AND Prod.Sequence_Number = '001'
GROUP BY Cont.Equipment_Retail;
Actually... I might not even have to. Why am I rewriting the whole instruction anyway, when it's only the ConstSubStmtContext that's interesting? ....
Hmm.. probably to avoid replacement errors like in Const foo = 42, barfoo = 72... I'll do a regex replace instead of a simple string.Replace, and bug solved.
You guys remember me talking about HearthMonitor a while ago?
It was to be used to save and give feedback on games you played in HearthStone
I do intend to push it quite quickly right now, but there's essentially no feedback options right now, it will only save log files of your game and it can show those pretty much
@Mat'sMug The log files contains logs of games, and you can extract a player's performance from that, not sure if you are familiar with collectible/trading card games, but lots of things are to be measured
@Mat'sMug @RubberDuck I'm going run out of ideas what to do whit the mocking VBProject. I don't know what else I should try, tried arrayList, tried to mock the extension of LinQ Cast - without success. So finally I went back to 'old' approach and made a fake VBProject class that implements VBProjects interface and this solved it so I can continue testing
I developed a script for the company I work for in order to extract data from SAP (CJ74) and analyze the data.
One particular issue I am finding is that for any data sets which have over 1000 lines, it struggles to execute the section of code below, therefore I am searching for answers.
This ...
Basically what you are asking is what can we do about this
_ExemptEndpoints.Add(Tuple.[New](Of String, Method)(ep1, method.GET))
_ExemptEndpoints.Add(Tuple.[New](Of String, Method)(ep1, method.POST))
_ExemptEndpoints.Add(Tuple.[New](Of String, Method)(ep1, method.PUT))
_ExemptEn...
VBA Rubberducking
VBA Rubberducking