We have a coding standard that says all shared (static) fields and methods must be called with the class name. E.g.
NameOfClass.whatever
Rather then
whatever
Is there a tool that we can use to check this is in fact the case?
(Likewise for modules)
Sorry I should have make it clearer we are using VB.NET.
This is a bigger example of what I mean.
Public Class Class1
Public Shared Sub SharedMethod()
End Sub
Public Shared sharedField As Integer
Public Sub NotSharedMethod()
'this next line shold be written as Class1.SharedMethod
SharedMethod()
'this next line shold be written as Class1.sharedField
sharedField = 5
End Sub
End Class
see also What StyleCop like tools are there for VB.NET
Yes,
Use StyleCop and write your custom rule to do your check.
Here's a reference to check how to write custom-rule for StyleCop.
Sure, just create a custom rule in StyleCop. Then incorporate the use of StyleCop into your automated build process.
Sorry, I did not even realize that StyleCop did not have a VB.NET version. What you need is a static analysis tool for VB.NET. Based on this thread, it looks like Project Analyzer is an option. Unfortunately it's not free.
From the web site:
Maintain. To help maintenance, Project Analyzer lets you enforce coding standards[.]
Whatever tool you use, be sure it incorporate it into your automated build process.
In the Project Properties > Compile, you can set the Warning configuration for "Instance Variable access shared member" to Error and it should generate a compiler error instead of a warning.
I'm not sure how you might do it for all projects. You could change the project template to include that option for all new projects.
Sorry I never did find a good tools for this.
You might be able to use FxCop for this purpose, and write a custom rule. Here is a good site that explains how to write custom FxCop rules.
Related
I'm trying to follow the promising suggestion posted here to try StatePrinter as a shortcut to rolling my own ToString methods. I agree with the OP that it is a shame that VS still can't generate this method for me.
I've got a fairly large project, in VS2015 (Community Edition), with both VB and C# code. I added the current stable version of StatePrinter using NuGet.
I can make the example code from the SO answer work fine in my C# code but when I do what I think is the equivalent in my VB code:
Private Shared sp As StatePrinter.Stateprinter = New StatePrinter.Stateprinter
Public Overrides Function ToString() As String
Return sp.PrintObject(Me)
End Function
I just get the compiler error
'Stateprinter' is ambiguous in the namespace 'StatePrinter'
There IS another constructor, StatePrinter (note difference in capitalization only) which is deprecated and, in any case, generates the same error message.
I'm led to the unfortunate conclusions that
VB in VS2015 is acting as if it is case insensitive. Can that be true?
No one else is using StatePrinter from VB.
Can anyone provide any suggestions on how to use StatePrinter from VB? I'm willing to believe I'm making some rather brain-dead mistake in converting the C# example to VB.
It is near impossible to use this directly in VB and get around the ambiguous name issue. You could write a class library wrapper in C# that doesn't expose this mismatch (that is, it has an internal StatePrinter object and exposes constructors that are PascalCased the same.
Another option would be to use reflection in the VB project to get around the case insensitivity.
You could also create a GitHub issue. Or, be a contributor to the project and create a suggested fix for it. :)
As soon as I got done writing #1 in the question above, I was able to figure out how to search for the answer to that bit.
Yes, VB is case insensitive, at least, as far as it needs to be in this case:
See the rather nice writeup here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/2301980/165164
So, we're left with the rather plaintive: is no one else using StatePrinter from VB?
Been having this issue for a while now, tried to google it, but don't now really how to ask google this properly, so will try it here.
I made my own dll's, each containing different vb.net modules, each with different functions.
So for example I have a vb.net module called 'Helper', with the functions 'helper1', 'helper2', 'helper3'..
So I want to call it in a website like 'Helperdll.Helper.helper1()'.
Problem is that the intellisense already shows the functionames before I typed the modulename. So it's possible for me to call 'Helperdll.helper1(). And I want this to dissapear.
I already tried to add this just before the function. This hides indeed the functionname for the intellisense, but is not really what I'm looking for. :
'<System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsable(System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState.Advanced)>'
So my question: Isn't it possible to add a rule like this one above on top of the module (so not for every function seperatly) or fix something in the properties of the dll which will hide the functionnames until the right module has been called?
That is a feature of VB.NET's Modules, it's called Type Promotion. There is no way to deactivate this behaviour.
Check if you really need a Module or if a class with Shared members would serve the same purpose for you.
Just saw that there already is a question like this: VB.NET Module - Can I force the use of <Module_Name>.Public_Member_Name when accessing pub. Members?
I have recently switched from a c# team to a vb.net team. One of the things I have not been able to find an answer to is the differences in compile error / options. Let me explain.
In C# i will, using default settings, get a compile time error when trying to pass in an invalid type to a templated class like below. Here I create an Animal with a string type and afterwards I pass in a datetime which results in an compile error.
IAnimal<string> animal = new Animal<string>();
animal.SetTrainer(DateTime.Now);
I know I will get the same compile time error in vb.net with "Option Strict". There is, however, a lot of legacy (VB) code in the same file that will not compile with "Option Strict". What options do I have. Im thinking this:
Switch to "Option Strict" and fix all errors. Will take some time and may break working code.
Maybe there is an alternate that will ensure compile time check of generics. After all generics are rather new so maybe there is a way of always enforcing this.
?
Thanks in advance
Double click your Project -> My Project.
Goto Compile and look for Warningconfiguration
Now you can change some settings.
Implicit cast
Late Binding
don't make them errors but warnings.
That won't make compile time errors but you can at least see some warnings.
Another solution would be to make your class a partial class and move your code to a new file. You can set Option Strict / Option Explicit on a per file basis.
Switch to "Option Strict" and fix all errors. Will take some time and may break working code.
Yes, do that. It will help you remain sanity.
Most errors that will pop up are probably simple casting issues, which are easy to fix (a CInt here, a ToString() there...).
You don't have to fix your whole solution or project at once, since you can enable Option Strict On at file level. Make it a good habbit to fix every file as you have to touch it.
This will not always be possibly, but you can also just move code that heavily relies on Option Strict On (e.g. COM stuff) to another file without breaking changes.
I am struggling with this program which uses emgucv(an opencv wrapper for .net) for about 2 weeks. The problem is unfortunately not programming, but setting up emgucv in such a way that it works. I didn't manage to do so for vb.net so I tried doing it for ironpython(because I know python too). Emgucv seems to work perfectly when using ironpython, so I created a function that takes an image as an argument and analyses it in the way I want, returning another image with the results in it. The problem is I want to call this function, giving it the image argument(it could be a string containing the path) from within VB.net and become another string containing the result image as return. I later plan to package that project in a setup so I can redistribute it.
So I am asking you guys: Do you know an easy way to call an IronPython function in VB.net in such a way so I can also package the whole project and redistribute it to people?
Thank you so much for reading this and it would be great if you could also help me with my problem! :)
While IronPython is not my expertise I am well versed in EMGU and its applications. If you insist in using IronPython the following website clearly shows how to pass a string to an IronPython Class.
The following code is taken from the link and is not my own:
Option Explicit On
Option Strict On
Imports Microsoft.Scripting.Hosting
Imports IronPython.Hosting
Imports IronPython.Runtime.Types
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim helloWorld As New HelloWorldVB()
Console.WriteLine(helloWorld.HelloWorld("Maurice"))
Dim runtime As ScriptRuntime = PythonEngine.CurrentEngine.Runtime
Dim scope As ScriptScope = runtime.ExecuteFile("HelloWorld.py")
Dim pythonType As PythonType = scope.GetVariable(Of PythonType)("HelloWorldIronPython")
helloWorld = CType(runtime.Operations.Call(pythonType), HelloWorldVB)
Console.WriteLine(helloWorld.HelloWorld("Maurice"))
Console.ReadLine()
End Sub
End Module
I would follow the tutorial from the link but the important code is bellow as this imports the require runtime information for IronPython:
**Imports Microsoft.Scripting.Hosting
Imports IronPython.Hosting
Imports IronPython.Runtime.Types**
&
**Dim runtime As ScriptRuntime = PythonEngine.CurrentEngine.Runtime
Dim scope As ScriptScope = runtime.ExecuteFile("HelloWorld.py")
Dim pythonType As PythonType = scope.GetVariable(Of PythonType)("HelloWorldIronPython")
helloWorld = CType(runtime.Operations.Call(pythonType), HelloWorldVB)
Console.WriteLine(helloWorld.HelloWorld("Maurice"))**
Obviously Console.WriteLine(helloWorld.HelloWorld("Maurice")) would be corrected to:
Dim result_location As String = helloWorld.HelloWorld("Maurice")
Where "Maurice" would be the string containing your image location.
Now I have to ask about the problems you were having setting up EMGU in visual studio I know it can be frustrating to do especially to people who are new to it. If you would like I would be happy to help you set it up properly. The reason I ask is since you are providing this to and end user your code could be more efficient without calling IronPython. Especially since each process will require reading and writing from the hard drive.
To start: I will assume that you have included References to Emgu.CV, Emgu.CV.UI, and EMGU.Util in your project. But it is essential that you add "opencv_core220.dll", "opencv_imgproc220.dll" files directly to your project and ensure in the properties window that the 'Copy to Output' option is set to "Copy always". If it isn't you will get errors of not a having the image in the right format etc. You only really need these two .dll to read images in and access the data etc you may need others for .avi movies for example. Note that these two .dll must now be distributed with your project for it to work.
To note this may change depending if your using a 64 bit machine or a 32 bit machine but the 64 bit EMGU version will not run on X86 machines. You must also ensure that your target platform is correct in Visual Studio.
I hope this helps you,
Cheers
Chris
I have a simple question. Coming from a java background and having worked extensively with eclipse, netbeans or any other java IDE, is quite nice to have the possibility to add a main method to a class and execute it within the IDE, with just a click, and see the output.
I was looking for the same possibility within xcode4/objective-c but I couldn't find a way. From time to time, I like testing small piece of software, without compiling and running the whole project.
As I am still "thinking" in Java, could you suggest the proper way to achieve this with xcode4 from an "objective-c developer point of view" ?
thanks
There's not really a lightweight way to do this, but you have two options that I can think of depending on whether you want to keep the harness code you've written.
If you do, then you'd need to make a new target in your project for each class you drive with a harness, and have that target build just the class you are driving and a simple file with just the main code to drive that class.
If you don't, then you could make a target with a main, and each time you want to drive a different class, change which files are built, change the code in main, and rebuild.
This is assuming that you want to avoid both running and compiling the rest of your code. If you don't mind compiling everything, you could have one test-harness target that builds all of your classes, and either change main on the fly, or use #ifdefs or a runtime argument to decide which helper code to run.