> Thank you David. I'll see what I can do. I'm in discussions with the developers of RubberDuck to figure out if we can get a mocking/stubbing framework to go with the unit testing so we have a complete solution. Hand rolling mocks is a pain.
Rubberduck has been offering IDE-integrated unit test since day one. But let’s face it: unit testing is hard. And unit testing VBA code that pops a MsgBox isn’t only hard, it’s outright impossible! Why? Because it defeats the purpose of an automated test: you don’t want to be okaying message boxes (or worse, clicking No when the test needed… Continue reading Go ahe…
> Build execution time has reached the maximum allowed time for your plan (60 minutes).
stuck
uh-oh
> System.ArgumentException: replace op boundaries of <ReplaceOp@[@3,18:19='',<228>,1:18]..[@11,45:47='boo',<233>,3:23]:"(ByVal boo As Boolean, ByVal fizz As Date)"> overlap with previous <ReplaceOp@[@8,38:38='(',<212>,3:16]..[@16,59:59=')',<219>,3:37]:"(ByVal boo As Boolean, ByVal fizz As Date)">
IntroduceParameterRefactoring needs to be more surgical
repair is still WIP @anyone feel free to step in and fix the rest of the failing tests, I need to get some sleep and I won't be able to fix them until later tomorrow
I created a code that runs 60 optimizations through solver through 4 series of loops (each with 15 'iterations'). The code works great but it is taking FOREVER to run through (over an hour). Each optimization is a simple linear model (global solution is found), just changing which month I am look...
> When there are certain valid lines after one of the invalid syntaxes, the Parser Error can report that the problematic line and column is several lines beyond where the invalid syntax occurs.
> When there are certain valid lines after one of the invalid syntaxes, the Parser Error can report that the problematic line and column is several lines beyond where the invalid syntax occurs.
> When I right click a project in the _CodeExplorer_ and select `Rename`, nothing happens.   even after forcing a reparse.
However, if I right click the project and select `Project Properties`, it will rename the project and trigger a reparse.
> This apparently isn't only an issue with `Debug.Print`. This example also produces a compile error:
``` Sub Foo() Dim x As Long x = Bar _ () End Sub
Public Function Bar() Bar = 42 End Function ``` This was probably a regression caused by the grammar change that picked up `ByVal` parameters, because it doesn't have a problem with indexers: ``` 'This parses fine. Sub Foo() Dim x() As String x = Split("1,2,3", ",") Debug.Print x _ (1) End Su
anyone have any suggestions on finding external document links in an Excel file that shouldn't have any?
File|Info|Edit links to files shows that there's a link to another Excel document, but a search through the text doesn't turn up any part of that other file's name...
I was given a mess of a code a while back that was a mess, and have completely rewritten it. However now the code takes .2 seconds per line which for a 500,000 line document is much too long.
Purpose of the Code: This code takes the new information that has been provided by a cleaned data dump ...
@Mat'sMug Unfortunately, I seem to be pretty good at accidentally creating links by copying formulas from one workbook to another (forgetting to copy the text and copying the cell instead), then not being able to find them by searching for .xls or part of the workbook name or anything else.
For a while now, I've been using this wrapper to avoid retyping most of it :
Public Sub PerfWrap(SubNameToRun As String, _
Optional ByVal DispStatusBar As Boolean = False, _
Optional ArgumentsToPass As String = vbNullString)
Dim aWB As Workbook, _
...
> I agree this needs to be opt-in... Although we do handle some weird edge cases better than the original Smart Indenter did - how about an ask-once prompt at startup, like the "Import Smart Indenter settings from registry" prompt?
I think I'm starting to internalize the 'self documenting code' ideas I've been reading. It's taken a while but now after I get something to work my first reaction is to refactor so it's simpler.
After sleeping on my C# idea that I have I think I can articulate with clunky code what I'm attempting to do. I'll neanderthal it out tonight for codereview.
Totally OT, but System.out.print("Do you want to play again? "); immediately made me think of WarGames. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Code Review... — FreeMan3 mins ago
also, you'll notice the fixes and refactorings now only modify the modules' rewriters; no module gets modified until its rewriter runs its Rewrite() method. for inspections we'll want that to be after the "fix all" loops have iterated all issues - and requesting a reparse before calling Rewrite() basically discards all pending changes
The internal conflict is real. I'm refactoring so much fugly code, code that I've written. I'm not sure whether to be proud that I recognize it as ugly/bad or ashamed since it's mine...
@Hosch250 I was having issues with the promote local to parameter refactoring (IIRC) - it's doing too much changes in the rewriter (the test fails with something like an "overlapping changes" error); the approach needs to become much more surgical than what it currently is, e.g. instead of rewriting the entire arg list, it needs to insert the argument at the correct token position
it's pretty easy actually - you get the ArgListContext, take its .Stop token (that would be the RPAREN), and you so know you need to insert at .Stop.TokenIndex - 1, with a context-sensitive comma+WS
> Rather than having separate issues for each VBA function that needs to have an IFake implementation, this meta feature-request should be used to track and prioritize functionality that needs to be faked. The PR with the framework shouldn't be much longer, so it's time to start tracking these. In general, we should probably prioritize functions that disrupt unit tests (like MsgBox and InputBox) so let's get those covered before adding more to the list. Note that the vbe7.dll doesn't have
> @retailcoder - I was thinking of building a complete mock filesystem to attach when any of the file handling functions were faked. Maybe in its own namespace? Something like:
`Fakes.FileSystem.CurDir.Returns("C;\Foo")`
Maybe with it's own configuration. Could probably do both too - allow the above **and** the option to do:
IVerify needs to know the parameter names at very least for the internals. When I get working on seeing what needs to be done to mock an interface, those can probably be more generic.
> @retailcoder - It depends. For COM objects, EasyHook needs an instance to examine the interface for. IIR, the object itself is always going to be a parameter on the interface call so we could either tie them to specific user created objects or try to emit a managed class that implements the passed interface. It basically needs some more research.
I'm going to play with seeing if I can narrow the scope of hooks against the kernel debugging APIs too. If I can figure out how to narrow the scope of the hook to just VBA user code...
...and then I'll eat vbWatchDog's lunch, take them behind the woodshed, and make their paywall'd product look like a toy at the bottom of a cereal box.
@Hosch250 notice I removed the indentation on most rewriter-involving tests; we need a bunch of tests dedicated to testing how the rewriter deals with WS tokens
> @comintern Could we just do a CreateObject of the application, dump stuff in the temp folder and then delete once done? That way, Fake is dealing with a dedicated instance of Excel/Word/other Office application, and thus would model its behavior much more accurately than an actual Fake implementation.
This isn't a general solution, though because that makes assumption that there's an Application object that we can instantiate and configure to use the Temp folder for the rest of testing. No
I wonder if there's a way to detect whether a rewriter change is overlapping before we push it onto the modification queue... that way we could detect whether a code change requires a reparse or not
> @bclothier - Maybe, but most likely not. I'm guessing the rtcCreateObject is just a thin wrapper around the VBA CreateObject function. If RD was hooking that and just newing up an object to mock the interfaces on, we might as well just use the existing objects. The other downside would be that anything we do inside a unit test that potentially creates new document objects probably isn't handled very well currently (IIR we're currently not disabling the parser if code is under test). Hoo
> A variable is declared, but never assigned a value/reference. [...]
But it fires for undeclared variables that aren't assigned, too - let's just drop the part about it being declared, that would be a holdover from before Rubberduck supported undeclared variables.
> This occurred to me the other day, and I'd already forgotten about it until #2885 reminded me - time to open a feature request.
We can easily tell if users are taking advantage of RD features like unit testing and the API. It would be nice to be able to provide an additional level of warning for some of them along the lines of:
> Use of an experimental Rubberduck feature. This may either not be stable in the current build, be subject to future interface changes, or both. Save your work
> @comintern, well, I wasn't thinking of just a straight `CreateObject` anyway. As I alluded to, additional configuration would be necessary so that it works in the temporary filesystem and maybe even use RD's eventual fake filesystem. As part of the CreateObject build-up, you can configure RD to ignore that dedicated instance of Office application for testing, among other things.
The point is that I think it's easier and less buggy to extend the existing native objects than to supersede it
> Just a thought - one way to avoid breaking the old changes is to do what Microsoft did when they renamed their constants -- dump them in a module named OldConstants, then define new constants with same value. I know this exists in Access' object model, at least. That way, you can then deprecate 2 versions later and thus remove it. Probably not applicable in this situation since it's already unstable but that would be one way to control such breaking changes in future, coupled with the inspec
> @bclothier - That's basically what I meant by "I think ultimately it should come down to a design decision as to whether to replace a specific interface member of a native object or set up an entirely managed dummy interface". RD shouldn't be in the position of determining the best methodology for test implementation - that is the domain of the test writer. What RD can do is offer a tool-set for the test writer to choose from. If the system under test only calls one method on an interface
Public Sub puzzlePiecesMissingPiece()
Dim long1 As Long
Dim range1 As Range
Dim arrRangeToArray As Variant
With ActiveSheet
long1 = .Range("B" & .Rows.Count).End(xlUp).Row
Dim filterRange As Range
Set filterRange = .Range(.Cells(1, 1), .Cells(long1, 2))
filterRange.AutoFilter Field:=2, Operator:=xlFilterNoFill
Set range1 = filterRange.SpecialCells(xlCellTypeVisible) 'Includes the header
Dim subRange As Range
For Each subRange In range1.Areas
I'm pretty sure that's what you were asking for.
That example is still rough. It can and should be refactored.
@puzzlepiece87 I'll help if you need some more assistance.
@IvenBach Thank you very much! I just read the .areas documentation - I've never used them before. The documentation didn't seem to make clear how an area is determined. Is it based on visibility, or....?
your original range is a singular contiguous (continually connected) group of cells. When you filter it and then use specialcellsthat is when you get a non-contiguous selection.
@puzzlepiece87 You can test it out by using Ctrl when selecting a few cells on your screen. Then in VBE in the Immediate window type selection.areas.count
I was given a mess of a code a while back that was a mess, and have completely rewritten it. However now the code takes .2 seconds per line which for a 500,000 line document is much too long.
Purpose of the Code: This code takes the new information that has been provided by a cleaned data dump ...
For a while now, I've been using this wrapper to avoid retyping most of it :
Public Sub PerfWrap(SubNameToRun As String, _
Optional ByVal DispStatusBar As Boolean = False, _
Optional ArgumentsToPass As String = vbNullString)
Dim aWB As Workbook, _
...
VBA Rubberducking
VBA Rubberducking