I'm having trouble with a .NET Assembly that is com visible, and calling certain methods from VB6.
What I have found is that if the parameters are well defined types, (e.g. string), calls work fine. If they are higher level objects, it raises a runtime error '438' suggesting that the property or method is not present. I suspect that this is a question of having the correct signature on the call, but I can't see how to do this correctly.
I believe that I've done everything correct on the .NET side (ComVisible, public interfaces, etc. and even have it down to a simple enough case).
Looking at the output from the typelib viewer, I have the following:
dispinterface ISimple {
properties:
methods:
[id(0x60020000)]
void Add([in] ISimpleMember* member);
[id(0x60020001)]
ISimpleMember* Create();
};
OK. So I have 2 methods in my ISimple interface. One takes an ISimpleMember (Add), whilst the other, returns an ISimpleMember.
The corresponding code in VB looks like this:
Dim item As ISimpleMember
Dim simple As simple
Set item = New SimpleMember
item.S1 = "Hello"
item.S2 = "World"
Set simple = New simple
simple.Add (item) <---- This raised the run time error 438
Set item = simple.Create <---- This works fine, returning me an ISimpleMember
I've tried a couple of things:
1. Dim item as SimpleMember (makes no difference)
2. simple.Add(ObjPtr(item)) - Syntax error
3. simple.Add(ByRef item) - Syntax error
Basically, The run time error is the same as if I had
simple.AMethodThatIHaventWritten()
Also, If I browse References in the VB6 Environment, The Add method is well defined:
Sub Add(member As SimpleMember)
I've found the answer I believe. It was very simple:
When calling a SubRoutine, I shouldn't put the name in braces. the call should have been:
simple.add member
rather than
simple.add(member)
If I change it to a function (i.e. return a value rather than void) the braces are necessary
This seems to work
(Probably) The top 3 VB6 coding mistakes made by devs who now mainly code in C#, Javascript etc. Are:-
Placing ; at the end of lines. Its a syntax error very easily spotted and picked up the compiler.
Not placing Then on the other side of an If condition expression. Again its a syntax error.
Calling a method without retrieving a value and yet using ( ) to enclose the parameter list. With multiple parameters this is a syntax error and easily found. With only one parameter the use of ( ) is interpreted as an expression. Its the result of the ( ) expression which is passed as parameter. This causes problems when ByRef is expected by the callee.
Related
below code is c#
ctx.CreateStreamResponse(stream => new Session(_Sessions, stream).Process(),"video/mp4");
and i need to this code as VB.NET code. am converting as below
ctx.CreateStreamResponse(Function(stream) New Session(_Sessions, stream).Process(), "video/mp4")
But getting error
overload resolution failed because no accessible
"CreateStreamResponse" can be called with these arguments.
CreateStreamResponse needs 2 parameters
Stream (as my sample Function(stream) New Session(_Sessions, stream).Process())
content type (as my sample "video/mp4")
Anyone can help me, please
I believe the issue seems to be that the method which you pass into CreateStreamResponse should be a Sub not a Function. i.e:
ctx.CreateStreamResponse(Sub(stream) New Session(_Sessions, stream).Process(), "video/mp4")
CreateStreamResponse takes an Action(Of Stream) delegate as the first argument and a contentType of String as the second argument.
Thus you need to use Sub rather than a Function as in this case an Action delegate can only encapsulate methods that return void (sub procedures). Also, ensure that the Process method being invoked is also a Sub procedure.
If the problem persists then as suggested by Microsoft docs:
Review all the overloads for the method and determine which one you
want to call.
In your calling statement, make the data types of the arguments
match the data types of the parameters defined for the desired
overload. You might have to use the CType Function to convert one or
more data types to the defined types.
for more information see here
I have been searching for this all over the web, but everything is either talking about the ErrObject class, or the constant vbError returned by the VarType function. I want to know what that type actually is, e.g. an integer is something like 4, a string is something like "hello world", etc.
For a little background, here is a link to the official MSDN page about VarType, which shows all the constants it returns and what they represent. What is Error value?
If you are familiar with COM in C/C++, you should know that from that perspective VarType() is a simple function that essentially extracts the value of the vt member from the Variant passed in as a parameter. The possible values of the vt member are documented in many places, such as here.
If you check inside of the COM system headers (e.g. WTypes.h distributed as part of in the Windows SDK), you will see that the VbError value of 10 indeed maps to the C/C++ enum value of VT_ERROR.
enum VARENUM
{ VT_EMPTY = 0,
...
VT_ERROR = 10,
...
} ;
The MSDN link above describes the meaning of a vt that equals VT_ERROR as follows:
An SCODE was specified. The type of the error is specified in scode.
Generally, operations on error values should raise an exception or propagate the error to the return value, as appropriate.
So, here's basically what it means:
A Variant obviously supports storing many types of values, and among them is the obscure possibility of storing an "Error Code". More correctly, these codes are formally called scode's, because they can indicate many types of "success" as well as "failures". Most people refer to these codes as HRESULTs.
These codes are the same kind of "Error Codes" that you get from Err.Number in VB6. So, you can tell a Variant to distinguish an "Error Code" from just a plain number.
In reality, few programs or COM components - if any - will ever put error codes in Variants. Almost everybody just issues COM Exceptions to communicate errors (this mechanism is exposed in VB6 via the Err object). Even those components that return error codes outside of the COM Exception mechanism, would likely do so in typed variables (e.g. Long's).
Therefore, the reason this possible return value exists is for completeness. You will almost never see it in real life.
(Edit: Remove bit about not being able to create an "Error" variant. #Joe proved me wrong on that. You can use CVErr() to create one)
In VB6 and VBA, error values are created by calling the CVErr function.
This function returns a Variant whose VarType is vbError, and for which the IsError function returns True.
A typical use case for this is an Excel UDF that returns a Variant: if you return an error value, it will display as #VALUE!.
I've a simple class like this:
Public Class CalculationParameter{
public Long TariffId{get;set;}
}
In a workflow activity, I've an Assign like this:
(From tariffDetail In db.Context.TariffDetails
Where tariffDetial.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId).FirstOrDefault()
Dto is passed to Activity as an Input Argument.
It raise following error and I'm wondering how to assign Id. Any Idea?
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'Int64
GetValue[Int64](System.Activities.LocationReference)' method, and this
method cannot be translated into a store expression.
How can I assign the calculationParameter.TariffId to tariffDetial.TariffId?!
UPDATE:
Screen shot attached shows that how I'm trying to assign calculationParameter.TariffId to tariffDetail.TariffId (car.Id = Dto.Id) and the query result should assign to CurrentTrafficDetail object.
Here's your problem. I don't know if there is a solution to it.
As you said in a (now deleted, unfortunately necessitating that I answer) comment, the exception you're getting is
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method Int64 GetValue[Int64](System.Activities.LocationReference) method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
in your Linq query, calculationParameter is a Variable defined on the workflow. That Variable is actually an instance that extends the type System.Activities.LocationReference and NOT CalculationParameter.
Normally, when the workflow executes, the LocationReference holds all the information it needs to find the value which is assigned to it. That value isn't retrieved until the last possible moment. At runtime, the process of retrieval (getting the executing context, getting the value, converting it to the expected type) is managed by the workflow.
However, when you introduce Linq into the mix, we have the issue you are experiencing. As you may or may not know, your expression gets compiled into the extension method version of the same.
(From tariffDetail In db.Context.TariffDetails
Where tariffDetial.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId)
.FirstOrDefault()
is compiled to
db.Context.TariffDetails
.Where(x => x.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId)
.FirstOrDefault();
When this executes, L2E doesn't actually execute this code. It gets interpreted and converted into a SQL query which is executed against the database.
As the interpreter isn't omniscient, there are a well defined set of limitations on what methods you can use in a L2S query.
Unfortunately for you, getting the current value of a LocationReference is not one of them.
TL:DR You cannot do this.
As for workarounds, the only thing I think you can do is create a series of extension methods on your data context type or add methods to your CalculationParameter class that you can call from within the Expression Editor. You can create your Linq to Entities queries within these methods, as all types will already have been dereferenced by the workflow runtime, which means you won't have to worry about the L2E interpreter choking on LocationReferences.
*Edit: A workaround can be found here (thanks to Slauma who mentioned this in a comment on the question)
I have a simple code in C#:
Console.WriteLine(string.Join<char>("", ""));
And I can't convert it to VB.Net. Even reflector show me code in VB like:
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(Of Char)("", ""))
But it can't be compiled becouse I have an starge error:
Error 1 Expression expected.
It looks like VB.Net don't have this generic method at all.
Both project use Net Framework 4.
Why this error happened?
UPD:
I've create a custom class and copy Join(Of T) declaration to it:
Class string2
Public Shared Function Join(Of T)(ByVal separator As String, ByVal values As System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable(Of T)) As String
Return "1"
End Function
End Class
Console.WriteLine(string2.Join(Of Char)("", ""))
It works
UPD2:
My compilation string, where you can see that I'm using Net4:
http://pastebin.com/TYgS3Ys3
Do you have a code element named String somewhere in your project?
Based on the answer you have added to this question (where you indicate that changing String to [String] appears to have solved the problem), I guessed that this may be the result of a naming collision.
I was able to duplicate the error you are seeing -- "Expression expected" -- by adding a module to my project called String and defining a (non-generic) Join method from within that module.
This may not be the specific scenario you find yourself in. But the fact that the code works for you with [String] is, to me, very compelling evidence of a simple namespace collision.
Based on the documentation for the "Expression expected" error, I'm guessing you haven't included the entire section of code where this error is appearing for you.
Do you have a lingering operator such as + or = somewhere?
(The VB.NET code you posted is indeed equivalent to the C# code above it and should compile no problem. This is why I suspect the real issue lies elsewhere.)
String.Join<T>(string, IEnumerable<T>) is useful with LINQ, for standard joins is better to use the String.Join(string, string()) overload.
In C#, "" as Char produces an empty Char (\0). Writing the same thing ("") in VB produces an empty string which is not the same as an empty char. In order to produce an empty character, you'll have to write New Char().
Your VB code therefore becomes:
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(Of Char)(New Char(), New Char()))
Edit
I just checked and it appears String.Join does not support the format you're specifying.
Instead, it goes as follows:
Join(separator As String, value As String()) As String
Your code should be as follows:
Console.WriteLine(String.Join("", New String() {""}))
String.Join(Of Char)(str1, str2) wasn't added til .net 4, it seems. That's why your custom class worked -- it had the declaration, but the String class in the framework you're actually using doesn't.
Check your settings and references to make sure you're targeting .net 4 all around -- cause that's the only thing that seems able at this point to stop the call from working.
Here the solution:
Console.WriteLine([String].Join(Of Char)("", ""))
Why this problem occurs only with generic method? I wish I know...
I have a following code which works fine
MsgBox(AddSomething(Of String)("Hello", "World"))
Public Function AddSomething(Of T)(ByVal FirstValue As T, ByVal SecondValue As T) As String
Return FirstValue.ToString + SecondValue.ToString
End Function
Now we are redesigning the application to work with parameters of different types which will be provided through XML
<SomeValues>
<Add Param1="Somedata" Param2="SomeData" MyType="String"/>
<Add Param1="Somedata" Param2="SomeData" MyType="MyBusinessObject"/>
</SomeValues>
If I try to provide the following it gives error as Of accepts only type
''''Get DetailsFromXml --- MyType,Param1,Param2
MsgBox(AddSomething(Of Type.GetType(MyType))(Param1,Param2))
How to solve this issue.
Edit
The above example is given to make the question simple. Actual issue is as follows
I am using SCSF of P&P.
Following is per view code which has to be written for each view
Private Sub tsStudentTableMenuClick()
Dim _StudentTableListView As StudentListView
_StudentTableListView = ShowViewInWorkspace(Of StudentListView)("StudentTable List", WorkspaceNames.RightWorkspace)
_StudentTableListView.Show()
End Sub
Now I want to show the views dynamically.
Public Sub ShowModalView(ByVal ViewName As String)
Dim _MasterListView As >>>EmployeeListView<<<<
_MasterListView = ShowViewInWorkspace(Of >>>EmployeeListView<<<)("Employee List", WorkspaceNames.RightWorkspace)
_MasterListView.Show()
End Sub
So the part shown using the arrows above has to be somehow dynamically provided.
The point of generics is to provide extra information at compile-time. You've only got that information at execution-time.
As you're using VB, you may be able to get away with turning Option Strict off to achieve late binding. I don't know whether you can turn it off for just a small piece of code - that would be the ideal, really.
Otherwise, and if you really can't get the information at compile-time, you'll need to call it with reflection - fetch the generic "blueprint" of the method, call MethodInfo.MakeGenericMethod and then invoke it.
I assume that the real method is somewhat more complicated? After all, you can call ToString() on anything...
(It's possible that with .NET 4.0 you'll have more options. You could certainly use dynamic in C# 4.0, and I believe that VB10 will provide the same sort of functionality.)
In .Net generics, you must be able to resolve to a specific type at compile time, so that it can generate appropriate code. Any time you're using reflection, you're resolving the type at run time.
In this case, you're always just calling the .ToString() method. If that's really all your code does, you could just change the parameter type to Object rather than use a generic method. If it's a little more complicated, you could also try requiring your parameters to implement some common interface that you will define.
If all you are doing is ToString, then making the parameters object instead would solve the problem in the simplest way. Otherwise you are going to have to bind the type at run-time, which in C# looks like:
System.Reflection.MethodInfo mi = GetType().GetMethod("AddSomething");
mi = mi.MakeGenericMethod(Type.GetType(MyType));
object result = mi.Invoke(this, new object[] { Param1, Param2 });
Because it involves reflection it won't be fast though... but I assume that's not a problem in this context.