Any help on why the default member is failing in the For Each would be really appreciate it.
This is based on this blog post from Doug Glancy:
https://yoursumbuddy.com/building-a-workbook-table-class/
1) Added a Class called
cWorkbookTables
Dim m_wb As Excel.Workbook
Dim m_Tables As Col...
Whether VBA can do serious OOP isn’t a question – it absolutely can: none of the SOLID principles have implications that disqualify VBA as a language, and this means we can implement dependency injection and inversion of control. A quick summary of these fundamental guidelines, before we peek at DI and IoC: SOLID Single Responsibility… Continue reading Dependency Injection + I…
@mansellan No it's frickin' not!!! It's the only thing that keeps the 5-10 largest cities in the country from running the entire country. California already makes way too many decisions because they're a large market and manufacturers have to comply with any stupid rule they come up with, which they end up selling to the whole country so CA, by default, makes rules for the whole country.
hrm... my server at home just notified me that the power is out and that it's exceeded its set run time so it's shutting itself down.
Seems a car ran into a power pole yesterday afternoon at about 3:55. Took them until almost 8pm to get power restored. Glad the UPSs got all the 'puters shut down gracefully. Though the one for my desktop machine is now beeping non-stop with a warning about "Internal Error". I think that means it's time for a replacement... :/
Yes, that's true and it'll be more tolerant with brownouts as well. The question is whether you'd rather fry the laptop's power supply or the UPS's battery in the process.
APCs web site indicates that it should give some sort of Fault Code. My wife just looked and couldn't find it displayed. I've found a couple of trouble shooting tips that I'll have to try out before replacing. It could be bad batteries, but these are only a year or so old, so unlikely (but still possible).
@this Yes, you do. I've replaced them in most of my UPSs. Used to be the batteries cost about 90% of a new unit, so I just bought new ones. Battery prices have dropped considerably.
Just saw some instructions on making your own battery pack out of a couple of automotive batteries. Might consider doing that! Might get 12-24 hours of run time out of that setup!!
oh well, back to code.
What does this middle one actually do?
Other inspections give more explicit options like "fix all in module" or "fix all in procedure", how does "fix all occurrences in project" differ from "Fix all detected occurrences"?
> **Justification** When using source control, keeping fixes to one module at a time can be desirable. This inspection offers options to `Fix all in project`, `Fix all detected occurrences` (which isn't particularly obvious that it's across all open projects, especially with only one project open), or `Disable inspection`. Right-clicking offers the opportunity to fix the single instance.
**Description** An option to `Fix all in Module` would be very helpful to quickly fix several issues wit
@FreeMan Just out of curiosity, if you apply a fix to a module and that breaks the dependent module (e.g. the signature has changed and call sites now have to be updated), wouldn't you want to update the call sites before committing the changes to avoid having a broken version in git history?
yes. However the specific inspection I called out is flagging the use of Right instead of Right$ (or the other equivalent string slicing functions). I'm not sure how that would break a method signature. Additionally, I'm not advocating removingFix all detected occurrences, simply adding an additional option.
i.e., this is a RD "suggestion" inspection - either way will work, using the string-returning function is preferable, but shouldn't break things one way or t'other. Unless, of course, you're now returning a String where something's expecting a Variant... Oh, wait, that won't break anything.
Yeah, I agree 100% that if I'm changing a method signature, I'd prolly want to fix up all the call sites and check it in en-masse. I just don't think this situation falls into that category.
If I'm not seeing something, can you give an @IvenBach trademark crayon scribble explanation of what I'm missing?
;)
oh, you were referring simply to the "keep changes to one module at a time"...
Yeah - that's situationally dependent. If I'm addressing Inspections, I prefer to do it one module at a time when I can. If I'm creating breaking changes, well, fix it all up before checking in.
Anyway, I was thinking that if we provided the "fix in module", it might be a good idea to issue a warning when it's known that an quickfix can break the code when restricted to a module
Refactor|Remove Parameters, Refactor|Reorder Parameters, Refactor|Introduce Parameter aren't QFs (that I'm aware of), and they don't give you a choice but to go fix up the call sites.
Also, of note: my request is not a general purpose, across the board request to add 'all in module` to every QF - It is specific to the one identified. If that's not clear enough, I will add more text to make it so.
Yeah. That's probably why we didn't provide the "fix in module". I totally get the reasoning behind why one'd want to lestrict fixing to only one module
Just that if a QF can't be because it alters the call site or whatever, that should be warned so the user can make an informed decision
the title of the request is "Additional options for Use of variant-returning string function inspection"... I'm certain that's not the exact name of the inspection, but it not "Additional options for all inspections"...
two random inspections - different set of QFs. Pretty standard stuff...
and a different set of options on the right-click menu for that first one:
TBH, it would make more sense (to me, at least) if all options were on the context menu and as links at the bottom of the description. I'm not sure about the logic of breaking them up into 2 unique groups. But that's a discussion for a different day.
Ok then. Ignore my comment RE: work. Still seems to me more logical to consider it in a group rather than just adding it only for one inspection. It can't be the only one inspection that would benefit from such addition.
@FreeMan I kind of agree, but we really want to have custom panes sooner than later which would address several other UX shortcomings....
@this I do recall hearing that... that means things like red-squggly-underlines and context menus of inspections and QFs directly in the code pane, right?
a friend of mine (claimed to have) managed to somehow hook up his cell phone's BT antenna to his car's antenna. Said he could leave the phone in the car and walk all around his house and neighborhood chatting on his BT headset.
@this pretty much. Not unhandy, and, considering mid-naughties, not bad tech...
OK, I'm missing something really obvious:
'@Interface
Option Compare Database
Option Explicit
Private Type api
URL As String
apiFunction As String
UserID As String
Password As String
RequestHeaders As Scripting.Dictionary
End Type
Private this As api
'---------------------------------------------------
Implements IRestDriver
Public Function Create(ByVal inURL As String, ByVal inFunction As String, ByVal inUserID As String, ByVal inPassword As String) As IRestDriver
With New RESTDriver
'NOTE: Expects no trailing slash in the URL
@FreeMan each QF has a public virtual bool CanFixIn[Module|Project|...] property that every QF can override. If a QF is dangerous or makes no sense to apply across the board, CanFixInProject will be overridden to return false, and the linkbutton for it won't show up
and on for the next couple of min, @MathieuGuindon
@this, Mug found your next dead horse.
More obviosity being missed:
Private Property Let IRestDriver_RequestHeader(ByVal key As String, ByVal Value As String)
this.RequestHeaders.Add key, Value
End Property
Private Property Get IRestDriver_RequestHeader(ByVal key As String) As String
IRestDriver_RequestHeader = this.RequestHeaders(key)
End Property
Why is it only Intelisensing the Geter, not the Leter?
@MathieuGuindon I tried doing something like this in some other code and hacked together a horrible workaround that made it work but I can never figure out how it's working. I now realize what I broke and why.
the RHS argument must always be the last parameter of the Property Let/Set member, no matter how many index parameters your Property Get wants (the Property Let/Set members' parameter types must be consistent with the Property Get signature if it exists, otherwise code won't compile)
@FreeMan also if you do Set .RequestHeader("Key") = something, but there's no Property Set member for the RequestHeader property, code won't compile either
Let thing.MyProperty = 42 invokes Property Let; Set thing.MyProperty = somethign invokes Property Set
and thing.MyProperty.Foo, or foo = thing.MyProperty, invokes Property Get
Regarding the fix multiple settings on quickfixes, those that use refactorings ehithput a special entry point for them, are all restricted to fixing single instances.
Maybe we should add a separate interface to the refactorings providing the necessary entry point.
@Hosch250 I've got one of those. Don't think I've ever used it. You do have to be careful - if the puncture is too close to the shoulder, a plug repair is more dangerous than good. It can get you to a tire place to get it replaced if you drive carefully, but... YMMV
Also, Discount Tire will usually repair (at least they do 'round here) for free.
That's why everyone hates VBA so much - there are so many misconceptions and cargo cult, that, well, if you're a formally trained programmer, it's just egregious. If you've picked up the ability to write some macros on your own, it's really cool.
@Hosch250 the 2nd loop doesn't declare the starting value?
> @Hosch250 that would be an installer prompt, so "disable completely" could not even install the Rubberduck.Telemetry assembly, while "not right now" would install it, but leave the setting disabled.
> That'd be a pain if someone toggled it to Enabled after installing with it Disabled. Alternately, would we remove the DLL if they installed in to Enabled, then toggled to Disabled?
I'm just saying, if you can disable it and leave the DLL there, I don't see the difference between not having the DLL at install or just toggling it off.
If they are really desperate, they can block us at the network level anyway.
We could even say which URL we publish to. telemetry.rubberduckvba.com, for example.
there's no difference. except when you're in a locked-down corporate environment that freakishly controls everything and they might be ok with RD but not with telemetry
@Hosch250 Azure+HTTPS is a prerequisite for it anyway :)
and trust me, some of us work with corporate IT departments that have strange ideas of what's secure and what isn't. (I'm looking at you Cisco AMP for EnpointsandSymantec Endpoint Protection both running on my machine at the same time.)
point being, telemetry is inherently double-edged, so we need to go out of our way to reassure paranoid users that no telemetry is happening if they said they don't want it
Any help on why the default member is failing in the For Each would be really appreciate it.
This is based on this blog post from Doug Glancy:
https://yoursumbuddy.com/building-a-workbook-table-class/
1) Added a Class called
cWorkbookTables
Dim m_wb As Excel.Workbook
Dim m_Tables As Col...
VBA Rubberducking
VBA Rubberducking