> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5387?src=pr&el=h1) Report > Merging [#5387](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5387?src=pr&el=desc) into [next](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/commit/dc732efef8fb3a7ced16e4af16e3257ed10fea11?src=pr&el=desc) will **increase** coverage by `0.16%`. > The diff coverage is `88.01%`.
> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5387?src=pr&el=h1) Report > Merging [#5387](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5387?src=pr&el=desc) into [next](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/commit/dc732efef8fb3a7ced16e4af16e3257ed10fea11?src=pr&el=desc) will **increase** coverage by `0.15%`. > The diff coverage is `88.01%`.
So I was reading the C# language specification and:
C# is an object-oriented language, but C# further includes support forcomponent-oriented programming. Contemporary software design increasingly relies on software components in the form ofself-contained and self-describing packages of functionality."
What exactly is the common definition for an object or a class again?
I've got GetDataFromEDW checked out currently, but have made no changes, nor committed anything to it. I'm confused why there are so many arrows leading away from that branch and SatReportFromNRC which I branched it from.
I would expect my current branch to be at the bottom with 1 or more arrows leading to it, not this way.
All I've done with it so far is create the branch, look at some code and realize that I want to get a module that I think I created and checked in somewhere. (<- that's question #2)
The hash at the bottom has a pop-up where I labeled it as my "Initial checkin to git" so that means that the arrows point to the parent
i.e. at one point, I started working on eligibility, and that's as far as it's gone. I also created a branch from there called dataload.
in the dataload branch, I made some changes and stashed them, and they're sitting there, somewhere, probably rotting away being of no use anymore because I haven't a clue what I did in there or why.
most likely after committing dataload to master & pushing to origin, I created AutomateFTPtoNRC and committed and pushed it to master& origin.
I then created branch SatReportFromNRC based off of master and from it created branch GetDataFromEDW.
origin is some sub-set of the code changes that had been committed to SatReportFromNRC, as is ConnectToEDW (because whatever changes are in SatReportFromNRC haven't been pushed to origin yet). and master is somewhere ahead of origin because changes have been made to master but haven't yet been pushed to origin.
@this I'm looking through your article on OASIS set up again
> We also generally don’t include ODBC linked tables because we usually have a code routine to relink the tables, so having it in source code control does not make sense for us.
That makes sense. How do you go about "relinking" the tables if they're not there in the first place?
As it stands, I've got my tables linked. When the code starts it determines what directory it's being run from and if it's the "PROD" directory, it sets a "PROD" parameter, then relinks all the existing tables to the PROD SQL server.
Correct. The code has to select the connection string, then connect first. That'd have to be done before it even gets to the server's table of linked tables to build.
Other than that issue I had late last week with my record source missing, I'd actually deleted all the linked tables from my dev build. There's no other need since I'm really using Access as a front end and not doing any actual "work" with it.
this could all happen with user forms from Excel, frankly.
So we do have another table --- a local table --- that stores the connection data (without username/password, of course) that is used to provide the connection string.
Yep. Those need to be kept separate. I have a class to represent the database connection and request the links and all the magic happens... automagically.
You're aware of cached connection behavior, right?
Unfortunately that is an Access-only thing; Excel doesn't have that. Not even ADO has that. That makes security in those other scenarios unnecessarily complicated.
Let me rephrase that. ADO does kind of have that with Persist Security Info=False; but if you're going to create a new Connection every time you run a query, it becomes basically useless.
do a new test. After you've cleaned stuff up and ensured you don't have that anymore both in the VBA project & in the filesystem, do another OASIS import of only one module that you know to be a class module and see if it comes up with that text again
MyRoutine parm2 should be MyRoutine parm1, parm2. At some point, I'm 99.999% certain that I unintentionally deleted parm1. I've also very intentionally replaced it several times. I'm 99.999% certain that I'd replaced it here, too.
hey, git has history, I should be able to see if I actually checked that fix in, right?
let's simplify. Your workflow should be like this on a daily basis (well, not "daily" but often enough):
1. Pull from master! Import it!
2. Do your work
3. Save, export and push to your local branch
#1 is the most important thing, hence the exclamation points. If you skip that, you risk ending up with a branch that's going off on its tangent and is not in sync with the trunk.
That is especially true when you switch between 2 different branches
so if I'm bouncing between branches, putting in hot fixes (like I did an hour ago), git merge master to pull that changed code into my current branch so I don't overwrite what I did previously.
yes. You wnat to keep your current branch synchronized as close to the master as possible
most of time, there shouldn't be a conflict but if there is, you want to resolve it sooner than later as it'll be fresh in your mind why that was changed and how you need to address it in your current branch
dumb(?) question. If I do HotFixA based off of master, then merge NewFeature1 into master without ever having merged HotFixA into NewFeature1, why don't I get any sort of conflict when I try to merge NewFeature into master?
why does it seem that NewFeature just overwrites master and clobbers HotFix?
---------------------------
Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
---------------------------
The Visual Studio component cache is out of date. Please restart Visual Studio.
you then need to pull from masteragain, to merge the HotFix's merges into the NewFeature1 branch. You then resume your work on NewFeature1, finish it and commit into the NewFeature1 branch.
After having merged the master into NewFeature1 branch, your NewFeature1 is now few commits ahead of master, but does not have any commits behind the master anymore.
You can then merge NewFeature1 into the master branch, and it preserves the HotFix` correctly.
I've looked at it. Looks OK. Good news is that it's just a test method to ensure other things were working as expected. Probably will go away in the very near future
Not sure which version git thinks is the binary Forms/ReportMaster.layout, though. They should both be text as exported by OASIS...
I copied what you see in the left panel of that screen shot, pasted it here in the text box and it translated to what you see in the text that followed
It shows the random (looking) hex as seen in the screen shot
DatasheetGridlinesColor =14806254 RecSrcDt = Begin 0xab09a2760eaee440 End GUID = Begin 0x4c6e8304ba5c19498ef91e3e18c4d3ac End NameMap = Begin 0x0acc0e5500000000000000000000000000000000000000000c00000005000000 , 0x0000000000000000000000000000 End
sorry, I am distracted - I think that is actually text being removed from the original version but I'm still unclear why both seem to be the same thing
hmm, the merge tool shows that they are =. I'm wondering if you have it set to show all differences or considering whitespaces which would make them look "different"
I tried it again without the Fixed format and got the same result. For a moment, I saw all the hex, but then Chat added the scroll bar and the hex disappeared and in its place was the formatted words
oooohhh... When I copied from the TGM window, I was copying lines 1-25, but it had lines 5-22 hidden, so when I pasted, I was getting 17 lines pasted that I wasn't actually seeing
Not so much panic mode, but a severe case of WTF?????
holy carp that is weird!
When I scrolled up to find one of those text pastes, hit "Show all" then scrolled all the way to the bottom:
I just didn't scroll far enough down, I guess. I thought I did...
OK. Looking at it now, ignoring the organgish color and looking only at the white and bright yellow. It looks like the only changes are the addition of some blank lines vbCrLf. Even though it's set to ignore all whitespace, it's showing them as new, blank lines.
I hit "Mark as Resolved" then "Save"?
Also, it's only the Next Difference/Previous Difference buttons that are enabled. Next/Previous _conflict_ are disabled, so I'd presume there really aren't any conflicts?
> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5387?src=pr&el=h1) Report > Merging [#5387](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5387?src=pr&el=desc) into [next](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/commit/dc732efef8fb3a7ced16e4af16e3257ed10fea11?src=pr&el=desc) will **increase** coverage by `0.15%`. > The diff coverage is `88.01%`.
ah... I think that this time I tried doing the merge via Tortoise instead of CLI, but then I closed the window when it reported the conflicts. I rummaged about in the Source directory and right-clicked Resolve on the individual files instead of leaving the merge window open and doing it from there.
yeah if you note, dialogs make it easy for you to go from one workflow to other without having to close dialogs in between, so I only use right-click menu only to actually kick off something but not as a continuance of the same something.
I finished the merge as indicated in the screen shot above. Now it's prompting me to PUSH, but I don't want to do that, since this was a merge from master into currentFeatureBranch. Right?
lol, just had someone @ tag me then curse a whole bunch, then deleted their post. issue with "the index of color is 36, why is it black?" and they had .color = 36. i posted .colorindex versus .color and that apparently negated 30 minutes of their spent time
Now that jogs a memory - I think comintern was looking to cut down on the time spent parsing in testing CE.
since the unit tests for CE would not have any new declarations, he wanted to skip the parse part so that unit tests could complete quickly using a provided expectation of hte output
VBA Rubberducking
VBA Rubberducking