VBA Rubberducking

Duga

12:00 AM

RELOAD!

[banane-io/PDB] 1 closed issue. 1 issue comment.

[Minesweeper] New Users: 55, Games Played: 207, Bombs Used: 142, Moves Performed: 24334

RELOAD!

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] 2 commits. 17 additions. 7 deletions. 7 issue comments

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] web-flow pushed commit 52b2bc5b to paypal-button

Update README.md

replaced form with static link

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] codecov[bot\] edited comment on pull request #5448: Adding donate button

> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5448?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> :exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request head (`paypal-button@52b2bc5`). [Click here to learn what that means](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/error-reference#section-missing-head-commit).
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.

Mathieu Guindon

12:17 AM

wow 2FA on PayPal is intense... leave the browser tab and your session is gone

#Secure

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] retailcoder created comment on pull request #5448: Adding donate button

> Link verified. Wording & layout ok?

IvenBach

1:55 AM

@MathieuGuindon Achievement Unlocked: set-up-slush-fund. Let me know when it is set up.

Mathieu Guindon

haha legit lol

IvenBach

2:35 AM

The feeling when you get the message: "I messed up a calculation. I fixed it in the file. Go ahead and set it up to run again." When setting-it-up-again is a 3-4 hour tedious process...

Mathieu Guindon

ouch

IvenBach

Yep. I'm still getting paid to set it up and run it though. Not what I want on a Saturday evening though.

the VBE - it's right for me

how can a property have both a Let and Set?

IvenBach

You can't. One or the other.

the VBE - it's right for me

then why would i need to have a unit test for that?

IvenBach

2:46 AM

Let is assignment for value types and Set is for reference types. AIUI.

If you property is just an assignment you shouldn't need a unit test for that.

the VBE - it's right for me

"Moreover, I am missing a few test cases. What about fields? What about a property with Get, Let, and Set?'

IvenBach

If you have a guard clause as part of the property then you should be testing that gaurd behavior.

You have any example code?

the VBE - it's right for me

github.com/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5445

Comment from there ~~I needed to test for~~ is what I quoted.

Mathieu Guindon

@theVBE-it'srightforme yes you can

@IvenBach Public Property Set Foo(ByVal value As Variant) works

a Variant property can have all 3 accessors

the VBE - it's right for me

oh

well that makes it easy to fix what he wanted then

i was not aware that was legal VBA

IvenBach

2:52 AM

I did not know that a variant would allow all 3 #TIL.

the VBE - it's right for me

@MathieuGuindon can you explain the comments about shared state in the unit tests? do i basically just need to pass a new List each call instead of modifying the static one?

@IvenBach <-

IvenBach

A unit test should be entirely self containing. Not reliant on anything else for the test to run.

Mathieu Guindon

@theVBE-it'srightforme imagine all the tests are running at the same time

(which could very well be the case)

static mutable state isn't going to be thread-safe

and even if the tests run sequentially

the VBE - it's right for me

so they can all call the same routine to do their work but that routine needs to construct the emulated VBE parameters distinctly for them

instead of using a static shared variable for it

ok

Mathieu Guindon

the fact that a test mutates some shared state that another test is going to read later is just not right

the VBE - it's right for me

2:57 AM

got it

viewing the tests as distinct is hard when they are all listed in the same class

i think

Mathieu Guindon

:+1:

the VBE - it's right for me

i can probably fix most of this pretty quickly

Mathieu Guindon

yes

the VBE - it's right for me

the comment about resource translations - is there a way to see where those are?

i know enough of a couple common localization languages to probably try

Mathieu Guindon

when you change the meaning of an existing resource string that's already translated in other languages, it's important to delete the key in the other resource files - that way come translation time, they'll pop up as "to-do"

or translate those you can :)

the VBE - it's right for me

3:00 AM

okay

Mathieu Guindon

not deleting the key basically leaves the other language with the older meaning

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] testingoutgith1 commented on Rubberduck.CodeAnalysis/Inspections/Concrete/ImplementedInterfaceMemberInspection.cs of pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

the VBE - it's right for me

and I find those resource files by typing in the same name as the english resource file without the .resx

iirc it was like InspectionNames.de.resx etc

Mathieu Guindon

hm? they're all in the same place

yes

.de, .cs, .fr, et.al.

the VBE - it's right for me

@MathieuGuindon not when you are finding them by typing in InspectionNames.resx in the solution explorer search :3

ok

Mathieu Guindon

3:01 AM

the resource keys exist in each one of them

the VBE - it's right for me

obviously I wouldn't try to translate the german ones

ok gonna finish dinner then get on this

Mathieu Guindon

that would actually be a sure-shot way to get a review comment with the correct translation ;-)

the VBE - it's right for me

don't tempt me

haha

and I guess the same would go for french wouldnt it :)

Mathieu Guindon

and with GH PR reviews we can even literally suggest the fix and you can incorporate the suggestions in one commit

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] web-flow pushed commit f99e4507 to paypal-button

Update README.md

moved to a table further down a bit

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] retailcoder synchronized pull request #5448: Adding donate button

Duga

7:51 AM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] testingoutgith1 commented on Rubberduck.CodeAnalysis/Inspections/Concrete/ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection.cs of pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

the VBE - it's right for me

8:38 AM

I made an effort to translate all the resources for ImplementedInterfaceMemberInspection

I am not confident in anything but the Spanish one so I left the English version in the comment box to make fixing it easier

I did not bother with localizations for the added inspection yet - since you said those were tracked automatically, I figured it would be easy to remember and add later when I havent burned out my limited capacity to understand foreign language.

The only questions I have left are the two commented in the added inspection

For the first one, I don't know what is off about the condition since it passed the original units tests I set up that it should not have passed if it was evaluating correctly, so I can't change anything. If it passes the full set with changes I'm just going to leave it unless I have something specific to look at.

For the second one, I thought that switching to an implementation of the base with global state could wait?

Everything else should be good so I am going to test it now.

M.Doerner

@theVBE-it'srightforme When working with resource strings, do yourself the favor to install the Resx Manager extension for VS.

It is free and males handling them way easier.

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] MDoerner commented on Rubberduck.CodeAnalysis/Inspections/Concrete/ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection.cs of pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

the VBE - it's right for me

8:55 AM

@M.Doerner I think I installed it?

But probably was not using it.

@Duga I knew it was going to be that before I read this.

Because it failed the test.

In my defense I did not learn until today that it was actually legal to have a Set and Let on the same property in VBA.

Because it is taught so clearly that Set = object, Let = value type

I know a Variant can be considered both but I assumed it would just require you to choose.

Is there an actual use case where you would have both a Set and Let like that? I'm honestly curious.

Working on RD has had the beautiful side effect of making me realize I also don't get VBA as well as I thought I did.

Anyways let me fix the conditional.

M.Doerner

The ResX Manager can be found in the Tools menu.

the VBE - it's right for me

ty

M.Doerner

Note that the ADODB.Connection class has a Get, Let and Set for its ConnectionString property.

That was the first time I stubled over it.

BTW, that property's behaviour is really strange.

the VBE - it's right for me

ADODB is something I dont understand at all I have to admit

it is?

M.Doerner

When you assign the connection string property of another connection, it actually assigns a reference of the entire connection.

The usaual behaviour would be to only copy the string.

the VBE - it's right for me

9:08 AM

oh wow

wait does it do that because you need to have unique connection strings?

M.Doerner

I guess they though, why be consistent when the other thing could be so convenient.

Not that Set assigning would do the same.

the VBE - it's right for me

so let assign vs set assign does different things?

M.Doerner

BTW, VBA has some very strange corners.

If you Let assign an object or class variable, Let coercion will take place.

I.e. the VBE will look for a default member and assign that instead.

If the default member has an object or class type, the process will recurse.

That is what happens when you do myRange = otherRange.

It is basically the same as myRange.Value = otherRange.Value.

the VBE - it's right for me

oh wow

that explains why people get confused by default properties so much

M.Doerner

We have a few inspections for that default member stuff.

the VBE - it's right for me

9:13 AM

yeah those are great inspections then lol

I remember doing that all the time when I was picking it up at first.

M.Doerner

BTW, you can have that for procedures, too.

the VBE - it's right for me

Because you can't even understand what is going on in enough detail so you need easy things like "A=B" for stuff you can see on the screen.

But then that causes problems down the road!

For procedures?

M.Doerner

If you just write myVariable, it is a compile-time error, provided it is not a class variable with a parameter-less default member.

If it has one, that default member will be called.

I think that is a really stupid feature.

the VBE - it's right for me

^

That is, I think, the conclusion of what I was trying to tell you.

M.Doerner

Even more stupid are DefTypes.

the VBE - it's right for me

9:17 AM

But there has to be a way to get rid of it while retaining the ease for the learner? I guess that is where the modern editor part of RD comes in.

M.Doerner

With those you can specify character ranges such that every variable starting with a character in the range automatically gets the corresponding type.

the VBE - it's right for me

@M.Doerner I can't even process this.

M.Doerner

Basically, Hungarian notation on steroids.

the VBE - it's right for me

Oh

Yeah I can process that.

That is hilarious?

In a really bad way.

Just based on, say, everything I've heard others say about certain forms of Hungarian notation. :=)

Anyways I have to ask a question - can you use lambda with Comparers?

M.Doerner

If you put DefBool A-C on top of your module, all members starting with a,b or c will be boolean, unless typed specifically.

Yes

the VBE - it's right for me

9:20 AM

I suppose I could see where that is helpful for you when writing it.

But for readability...lol

M.Doerner

This feature is so obscure that I have not seen it so far in the wild.

I just know about it because we have to handle it in the parser and resolver.

And, obviously, we have an inspection for it.

the VBE - it's right for me

That seems like a vestige from actual Basic or something lol.

Also how do you use lambda with comparer?

M.Doerner

Can you point me at an example?

the VBE - it's right for me

.Distinct(

i think you probably know what im trying to fix :)

if i have to account for all three the easiest way seemed to be using the LINQ method for unique values

M.Doerner

9:37 AM

For inspiration, you might want to look at WriteOnlyPropertyInspection.

the VBE - it's right for me

*:+10:

need a break brb

M.Doerner

Now that I look at it, I get the feeling that this inspection is a bit off.

Let me check the unit tests.

Oh wow, the test for Let with Set is wrong.

OK, the GroupBy should have grouped based on declaration.QualifiedName.

the VBE - it's right for me

fixed

i mean no point not to add it lol

Why is Comparer<T> harder to work with than Func<T>?

Okay the fixed logic works for the added inspection.

Duga

9:59 AM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] testingoutgith1 synchronized pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 7e6294f6 on unknown branch: 61.51% (target 0%)

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] codecov[bot\] edited comment on pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5445?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> Merging [#5445](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5445?src=pr&el=desc) into [next](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/commit/e56bb88f4eab28c1fbeb5146403ba9da37a52d39?src=pr&el=desc) will **increase** coverage by `0.03%`.
> The diff coverage is `92.5%`.

```diff
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #5445 +/- ##
========================

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] MDoerner commented on Rubberduck.Core/UI/Refactorings/MoveFolder/MoveMultipleFoldersView.xaml.cs of pull request #5438: Move to Folder Refactoring

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] MDoerner synchronized pull request #5438: Move to Folder Refactoring

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] codecov[bot\] edited comment on pull request #5438: Move to Folder Refactoring

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit f9697008 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build failed

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] MDoerner commented on RubberduckTests/Inspections/ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspectionTests.cs of pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] MDoerner commented on Rubberduck.CodeAnalysis/Inspections/Concrete/ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection.cs of pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 6f0a1d78 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] codecov[bot\] edited comment on pull request #5438: Move to Folder Refactoring

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 6f0a1d78 on unknown branch: 61.14% (target 0.00%)

Duga

11:07 AM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] testingoutgith1 synchronized pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] codecov[bot\] edited comment on pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5445?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> Merging [#5445](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5445?src=pr&el=desc) into [next](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/commit/e56bb88f4eab28c1fbeb5146403ba9da37a52d39?src=pr&el=desc) will **increase** coverage by `0.03%`.
> The diff coverage is `92.5%`.

```diff
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #5445 +/- ##
========================

Duga

11:21 AM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 6e4fe6a6 on unknown branch: AppVeyor build succeeded

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] codecov[bot\] edited comment on pull request #5445: Create ExcessiveInterfaceMembersInspection

> # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5445?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> Merging [#5445](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/pull/5445?src=pr&el=desc) into [next](https://codecov.io/gh/rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck/commit/e56bb88f4eab28c1fbeb5146403ba9da37a52d39?src=pr&el=desc) will **increase** coverage by `0.01%`.
> The diff coverage is `91.18%`.

```diff
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #5445 +/- ##
=========================

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 6e4fe6a6 on unknown branch: 61.5% (target 0%)

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 6e4fe6a6 on unknown branch: 91.18% of diff hit (target 60%)

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] build for commit 6e4fe6a6 on unknown branch: 61.50% (target 0.00%)

Feeds

1:16 PM

twitter.com/StackStatus/status/1244246944060280832

Mathieu Guindon

1:42 PM

@theVBE-it'srightforme say you're making yourself a custom collection type, but you don't know how it's going to be used and you want to keep it generic enough to be able to handle both String and Object items - you'll need all 3 accessors on that property

To be clear, it is an edge case ;-)

Feeds

2:50 PM

twitter.com/Nick_Craver/status/1244253359546253312

mansellan

5:53 PM

TFW you just start getting results from a new project, then realise the mountain still left to climb.

Duga

6:04 PM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] el-campesino added label support to issue #5449: Get Annotation @Description "read this" working

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] el-campesino opened issue #5449: Get Annotation @Description "read this" working

Duga

6:51 PM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] retailcoder created comment on issue #5449: Get Annotation @Description "read this" working

> Thanks for asking! After adding the annotations in a module, make Rubberduck parse the changes, and run code inspections (by default they run automatically after parsing finishes).

In the Code Inspections toolwindow, search for "annotation" or "description" - it should filter down the inspection results to a series of "Rubberduck Opportunities" results mentioning a mismatch betwen the annotation and the corresponding attribute:

![filtered inspection results](https://user-images.githubuse

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] retailcoder added label feature-annotations to issue #5449: Get Annotation @Description "read this" working

M.Doerner

@Duga @MathieuGuindon I just type too slowly on mobile.

Mathieu Guindon

=)

Duga

8:40 PM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] el-campesino created comment on issue #5449: Get Annotation @Description "read this" working

> Bonsoir à tous,
Thank you, that solved the problem, I would not have figured that out on my own. I recently started rubberducking. I did have seen the inspection-window, but there too many errors (I know, I can configure this).
Keep up the good work!
Georg

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] el-campesino closed issue #5449: Get Annotation @Description "read this" working

Duga

8:57 PM

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] Delatorrea forked us into Delatorrea/Rubberduck

2

Transcript for