-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wqweto
@LaVolpe: Does building in-memory index with rs.Fields(sSortField).Properties("Optimize").Value = True has any effect on rs.Sort = sSortField?
cheers,
</wqw>
It does, but just creating the index is a large speed hit on large recordsets. Additionally, if optimized, then the index seems to slow down new inserts; probably because the index needs to be modified/rebuilt. And here is the kicker. In a disconnected recordset, the optimized setting does not transfer to a clone, i.e., rs.Clone.
Edited: FYI. Setting Optimize on my tests recordset (500K records). It took nearly 12 seconds. However, searching afterwards was significantly improved using Find/Filter methods. I tried this method first, but was disappointed that the property didn't carry over to clones.
P.S. Don't want to set that before populating a large recordset
Without Optimize, inserting 500K records: 6 seconds
With Optimize set before inserting 500K records: 127 seconds
Update: And now I'll have to re-look at the Optimize property again. Creating a clone after the rs was optimized did not carry over the property. But using the clone for searching/filtering must use the optimized indexes too since there was significant improvement there too -- that's good news. Unfortunately, the bad news is that ADO is kicking out "Unspecified Error" when optimizing multiple fields and/or mixing in clones. That error breaks navigation (EOF & BOF become True while RecordCount=500K). The size of the recordset might be an issue also? Too many unknowns to confidently use the Optimize property.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
@Elroy and Dreammanor
When you guys find the time, can you run this against your very large project(s) and tell me the speed difference?
Test Steps
1. Create new folder and backup your current scanner code into that folder
2. Then download this zip and overwrite the files in that new folder
3. Open both projects
4. In your original project, add these lines. The replacement files in zip below already have this code. But don't overwrite your original scanner project files.
in frmMain.pvLoadProject just before the line: If m_Project.ParseFile(sFileName, Me) = False Then
Code:
Dim t As Double: t = Timer
in the same procedure just after the "End If" block, add this
Code:
Debug.Print "time: "; Timer - t; " seconds"
DO NOT run validations with the patched files below -- I need to make changes to them also. However, I want to know what kind of improvement we are looking at before I continue. In my tests, nearly 50% faster, but on much smaller projects. I don't own a 500+ code file project
Thanks to both of you in advance...
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Hi LaVolpe,
Okay, I just re-downloaded the ZIP from post #1 as my starting place. And then, I followed all your directions in post #122. Here are my results from the two runs:
Code:
time: 100.393343750002 seconds (old) VBP
Time 81.6086250000008 seconds (new) VBP
So, you've made some improvement, but I'm not sure it's enough to get terribly excited about. Personally, either way, with the benefits your project provides, I don't see this as a huge hindrance. But maybe it's become a challenge for you. :)
Also, this was run on my main VBP file (which has many modules and is quite large). I've also got a VBG file which loads all the ActiveX DLLs as well. But I almost never load the project that way. But I suppose I could run your scanner against that VBG file if you'd like. Just let me know and I'll do it.
Happy New Year,
Elroy
EDIT: Hmmm, I'm not sure I can explain this. I went ahead and ran both of your scanner versions on my VBG file. This time, I ran the new version first (just because my Explorer was sitting in that folder). Each time, I just opened your VBP and then ran the scan (from the IDE). This time, here are the results:
Code:
Time 84.7072187500016 seconds (new) VBG
time: 86.6345937500009 seconds (old) VBG
I've got no idea why the old way on VBG was faster than old way on VBP. That makes no sense to me. I copied the form from one of the scans just to show you that it actually loaded all the projects:
Attachment 164393
Also, the difference between the two scanner versions was much less this time. I've got no explanation for that either.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Elroy. Thank your for your time.
Question. Is your original scanner project the most recent one I updated in post #1 last week? Reason why I ask is that I had to make many modifications for DBCS and that version may be slower than the older version you have if you haven't donwloaded it? Your timings are curious if you are using the the recent version, I did expect a significant improvement between that version & the modified routines I gave you in my previous post.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Hi LaVolpe,
I've got two versions of your scanner stored away (as ZIP files) in my library somewhere. However, I didn't use either of those for my tests.
To start (at, let's say 9am Central time, a few minutes ago [actually, a couple of hours now]), I just re-downloaded the project in post #1. And, from there, I performed the tests you outlined in post #122.
Would you like me to do something different? You've given me AMPLE help through the years (including this project), that I'd be delighted to do more tests for you. Please just outline what you'd like.
Take Care,
Elroy
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Yes, can you use the most recent version as the base-line test and then use it again (a copy) with the replacement files posted above as the potential improvement test. Thank you.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
most recent version as the base-line
From post #1:
Quote:
Last edited by LaVolpe; Dec 25th, 2018 at 11:55 AM.
I feel like that's what I did. By "most recent version", you mean the version in post #1, correct?
I'll do it again though. I'll make a subsequent post with the repeat results. Sorry if I'm mis-understanding something.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Ok, maybe all of the scans in post #123 were against the VBG file, as it does appear before the VBP file.
However, this time, I was VERY careful. (I thought I was before, but it is New Years Day.)
This time, ALL of my scans were on my primary VBP file, with the following showing after the scan:
Attachment 164395
Now, this time, here's the order I did things:
1) Open the scanner VBP file from post #1 (with timing code inserted).
2) Run, and then open/scan my primary VBP file, and let it report timings.
3) Immediately re-scan this file, again reporting timings.
4) Close down that scanner project.
5) Open the scanner VBP file from post #1 with the files from post #122 unzipped and used as replacements.
6) Run, and then open/scan my primary VBP file, and let it report timings.
7) Immediately re-scan this file, again reporting timings.
Here are all the timings with my annotations:
Code:
time: 38.7498124999984 seconds (original, first scan)
time: 39.5207500000033 seconds (original, re-scan)
Time 38.5684374999983 seconds (modified, first scan)
Time 40.4113437499982 seconds (modified, re-scan)
I'm also going to try it with your originally posted version of the scanner. I'm hoping those timing lines will go in at the same spot.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Ok, going back to the first version you posted (the one that shows the modules in the treeview as it's scanning), there's a definite improvement (and this time, I'm certain I scanned my VBP file).
Code:
time: 53.474374999998 seconds
And, even after it reported that, there was a good 30 second delay while it refreshed the treeview before it released the thread back to me (err, Windows).
If you want me to test the timing of some interim version (between your first version and the one found in post #1), you'd better attach it to a post, just so we know we're on the same page.
Take Care,
Elroy
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Hmm, confusing for me. You should have seen some improvement nonetheless. When I ran it on a relatively small group file (6 projects), it was nearly a 50% improvement. Simply removing the recordset sorting on string/text fields should be a no-brainer speed increase. Confused.
Also, you have 507 code files, dreammanor has 537 (I think) but about 3x the executable lines. Your project takes ~40 seconds, his takes 425 seconds. If we simply extrapolate 3x your 40 seconds, that's 120 for his project not 425. Even that cannot be a fair comparison, because extra procedure code doesn't necessarily slow down the process a lot in the pre-validation phase of the scan. Something else is in play here.
And yes, 40 seconds for 500+ files doesn't seem too unreasonable. Don't know how many total code files are in your vbg project, but having 7 projects, 80 seconds doesn't seem too bad either. Still looking at speeding up the validation process though.
Edited: think we were posting against each other. 53 seconds reduced to 39/40 seconds is a fair improvement. Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the 425 seconds for dreammanor's project, that still has me confused.
I do have another interim version, but it's significantly different code than any previous version. I'm still playing with it as a replacement that should really improve validation speed. That version wasn't in any of our conversation to this point
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elroy
And, even after it reported that, there was a good 30 second delay while it refreshed the treeview before it released the thread back to me (err, Windows).
Still? I thought I resolved that. If you run it again, don't expand any nodes and hit the IDE pause button, can you report back the following?
In the immediate window, do this: ? frmMain.tvItems(0).Nodes.Count
I'm expecting that to be a small value of 14-ish. And if so, why would Windows add a 30-second delay for 14 nodes? Before, when the entire tree was populated, you'd have potentially 1000's of nodes and then I can understand it, but not with a dozen or so.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
Still? I thought I resolved that. If you run it again, don't expand any nodes and hit the IDE pause button, can you report back the following?
In the immediate window, do this: ? frmMain.tvItems(0).Nodes.Count
I'm expecting that to be a small value of 14-ish. And if so, why would Windows add a 30-second delay for 14 nodes? Before, when the entire tree was populated, you'd have potentially 1000's of nodes and then I can understand it, but not with a dozen or so.
No no, in post #129, I reached back and grabbed the original-first-version of your project. You have resolved that in subsequent versions.
But, to be clear, everything in post #128 was done with your latest.
Also, regarding differences between dreammanor and me, I'm running on a pretty good machine:
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700HQ CPU @ 2.80GHz.
GPU (if it matters for this): NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070.
C drive: HGST WD Travelstar 1TB, 7200rpm, 12ms seek.
RAM: 16GB
That might explain at least some of the difference.
EDIT1: Also, I'll bundle up the main VBP and send it to you, if you like. It'd take a bit to get it to where you could load and execute it, but I don't think you'd need that to run your scanner. Just let me know.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Certain Windows API's return short type (vb integer), like GetKeyState instead of int (vb long).
I presume that project scanner currently has no actual checking against api declarations?
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tech99
Certain Windows API's return short type (vb integer), like GetKeyState instead of int (vb long).
I presume that project scanner currently has no actual checking against api declarations?
Correct and that False positive is explained in the description (help menu). It is more or less a warning/reminder to double check. There is no intent to identify all APIs, across all libraries, that legitimately use those in their signature. Problem with some code is that stuff that is copied from elsewhere is hardly ever checked by users for proper API parameter/return vartypes. Again, meant just as a reminder.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
@Elroy and Dreammanor
When you guys find the time, can you run this against your very large project(s) and tell me the speed difference?
Test Steps
1. Create new folder and backup your current scanner code into that folder
2. Then download this zip and overwrite the files in that new folder
3. Open both projects
4. In your original project, add these lines. The replacement files in zip below already have this code. But don't overwrite your original scanner project files.
in frmMain.pvLoadProject just before the line: If m_Project.ParseFile(sFileName, Me) = False Then
Code:
Dim t As Double: t = Timer
in the same procedure just after the "End If" block, add this
Code:
Debug.Print "time: "; Timer - t; " seconds"
5. Now scan your large project using both versions. The immediate result will indicate the time taken
DO NOT run validations with the patched files below -- I need to make changes to them also. However, I want to know what kind of improvement we are looking at before I continue. In my tests, nearly 50% faster, but on much smaller projects. I don't own a 500+ code file project
Thanks to both of you in advance...
I'm back. Sorry for the late reply.
I added test time t2:
Code:
Private Sub pvLoadProject(Source As Variant)
' called from menu Load/Reload
Dim sFileName As String
If VarType(Source) = vbString Then ' else existing database imported, but not yet displayed
sFileName = Source
If LenB(sFileName) = 0 Then
Dim cBrowser As New CmnDialogEx
With cBrowser
.Filter = "Projects|*.vbp;*.vbg|VB Files|*.cls;*.ctl;*.dsr;*.bas;*.frm;*.pag;*.dob;*.vbp;*.vbg|" & _
"Classes|*.cls|Designers|*.dsr|Forms|*.frm|Modules|*.bas|Property Pages|*.pag|" & _
"User Controls|*.ctl|User Documents|*.dob|All Files|*.*"
.FlagsDialog = DLG__BaseOpenDialogFlags
End With
If cBrowser.ShowOpen(Me.hWnd, , , m_OpenGUID) = False Then Exit Sub
sFileName = cBrowser.FileName
Set cBrowser = Nothing
mnuFile(miRescan).Tag = sFileName
End If
End If
tvItems(0).Nodes.Clear ' clear
pvSetContextMenuItems False ' disable some context menu items
If mnuValidate(miToggleView).Checked = True Then _
Call mnuValidate_Click(miToggleView) ' show primary treeview
tvItems(0).Nodes.Clear: tvItems(0).Enabled = False ' make ready to populate
tvItems(1).Nodes.Clear: tvItems(1).Enabled = False
m_State = 0 ' reset
pvUpdateStatus chrsLoad, "Scanning Project"
If LenB(sFileName) <> 0 Then ' else recordset to be processed
m_State = 2
Set m_Project = New clsPrjFile
m_Project.ValidateEvents = mnuOpt(0).Checked
Dim t As Double
t = Timer
If m_Project.ParseFile(sFileName, Me) = False Then
Set m_Project = Nothing ' prevent options like saving/exporting
If sFileName = mnuFile(miRescan).Tag Then mnuFile(miRescan).Tag = vbNullString
pvUpdateStatus vbNullString, vbNullString
If (m_State And 4) = 0 Then
m_State = 0
Else
m_State = 0
Unload Me
End If
Exit Sub
End If
Debug.Print "Time " & Timer - t; " seconds"
m_State = m_State Xor 2
End If
tvItems(0).Enabled = True
tvItems(1).Enabled = True
Dim t2 As Double
t2 = Timer
Set m_Records = m_Project.Records
If Not m_Data Is Nothing Then m_Data.Close
Set m_Data = m_Records.Data.Clone
pvUpdateStatus "Project scanned...", "Preparing tree view"
pvItemsAdd_RootNodes (LenB(sFileName) = 0)
If tvItems(0).Nodes.Count <> 0 Then
Set tvItems(0).SelectedItem = tvItems(0).Nodes(1)
tvItems(0).SelectedItem.EnsureVisible
End If
pvUpdateStatus vbNullString, vbNullString
With m_Project.Records.Data
.Filter = SetQuery(constFldType, qryIs, ptSourceFile)
sFileName = UCase$(Right$(.Fields(constFldAttr2).Value, 3))
If sFileName = "VBG" Then
mnuCtx(miVbg).Visible = True
mnuCtx(miVbp).Caption = "Show VBP File"
Else
mnuCtx(miVbg).Visible = False
mnuCtx(miVbp).Caption = "Show " & sFileName & " File"
End If
mnuValidate(miVbgUnhide).Visible = mnuCtx(miVbg).Visible
.Filter = adFilterNone
End With
Debug.Print "Time2 " & Timer - t2; " seconds"
End Sub
The test results are as follows:
Old PrjScan
(1) Scan Krool's ComCtlsDemo.vbp(2018-09-07): Time1: 22.95 seconds; Time2(DataClone): 1.62 seconds
(2) Scan DreamManor's Large.vbp: Time1: 429.19 seconds; Time2(DataClone): 5.67 seconds
New PrjScan
(1) Scan Krool's ComCtlsDemo.vbp: Time1: 21.20 seconds; Time2(DataClone): 0.19 seconds
(2) Scan DreamManor's Large.vbp: Time1: 422.05 seconds; Time2(DataClone): 0.61 seconds
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Edit:
My VBP is stored in the U-Disk (USB flash disk). I copied the VBP from the U-Disk to the hard disk and re-tested it. The test results did not change much:
Old PrjScan:
Time1: 423.61 seconds; Time2(DataClone): 5.98 seconds (frmMain.tvItems(0).Nodes.Count = 16)
New PrjScan:
Time1: 415.86 seconds; Time2(DataClone): 0.59 seconds (frmMain.tvItems(0).Nodes.Count = 14)
In addition, there are 507 files in Elroy's project and 567 in my project. IMO, the time of scanning depends not only on the speed of the computer and the number of project files, but also on the number of lines of source code. Krool's ComCtlsDemo.vbp has 107 files，which is one-fifth of my project, but it takes only one-twentieth of the time of my project.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
...was significantly improved using Find/Filter methods.
Hi LaVolpe, use Seek method instead, it is much faster (100 times faster or more).
If it is still not fast enough, then consider to switch to DAO.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eduardo-
Hi LaVolpe, use Seek method instead, it is much faster (100 times faster or more).
If it is still not fast enough, then consider to switch to DAO.
Thanx for the thought. But if MSDN documentation is correct, this will not be an option as it requires server-side cursor where a disconnected recordset (no DB) is used in this project. A client-side cursor is required for disconnected recordsets.
Quote:
Seek: This method is supported only with server-side cursors. Seek is not supported when the Recordset object's CursorLocation property value is adUseClient.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
Thanx for the thought. But if MSDN documentation is correct, this will not be an option as it requires server-side cursor where a disconnected recordset (no DB) is used in this project. A client-side cursor is required for disconnected recordsets.
Ah. Then I would consider creating a temporary database file. It is not a lie that Seek is extremely faster.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eduardo-
Ah. Then I would consider creating a temporary database file. It is not a lie that Seek is extremely faster.
Already tried that. The overhead of inserting records into the DB was significantly slower than using the disconnected RS. A sample project took over 2 seconds vs just 1/2 second for a RS. And yes, I used SQL Insert to add records, not the recordset.AddNew method.
P.S. I did get a PM from dreamManor. The main speed issue is parsing the procedures in his case. When he skipped that part of the process, the time needed was about 1/2. However, that was just to find where the main speed hit was occurring. I do have a faster routine to get through the procedures for the initial scan, but haven't offered that up yet. I will shortly and ask dreamManor to be kind enough to run that one for me. It's not ready yet though.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
My experience is that adding an index does not cause much overhead, and if the index is the primary key then the index is already there.
But I use DAO, I don't know with ADO.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
DreamManor, I will continue to finish my latest version of this project.
But I don't think I'll be able to significantly improve the speed for you. In one of your recent posts, you mentioned that running Krool's 107 file ComCtlsDemo project, it took 21.20 seconds on your system. On my system, which is 10 years old, it took 8.2 seconds. I don't know how to resolve that large difference and do not think I can do it with code.
The improvements I made to prevent filtering on string/text recordset fields appears to work really well. In that same post, you mentioned that, with the previous version, it took 1.62 seconds after the project was scanned to the point of displaying the nodes. After you used the updated files, that time dropped to 0.19 seconds (8.5x faster). That part of the code is where most of the filtering is occurring.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
For grins, I took Krool's latest (here) and scanned them with the lastest scanner (in OP #1 of this thread, and with the timer lines from post #122 above), and got these results:
Code:
time: 6.03321875000256 seconds
EDIT: I re-scanned a few times and got the following:
Code:
time: 5.46303125000122 seconds
time: 5.60793749999721 seconds
time: 5.42271875000006 seconds
time: 5.50193749999744 seconds
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Elroy, obviously your PC is much faster than mine. Regarding faster times when re-running that parsing... Think that has to do with disc read/write smart caching. I see that all the time too.
I have identified the bottleneck in the code. Time needed is directly related to how many "event"-related items and procedures exist in the project. In Krool's project, there are 950 items tested for events: 730 controls, 98 classes, 90 Implementations, and 32 variables declared WithEvents. Among those 950 items there were 1,435 total events found.
This means 950 queries were executed using a "Like [itemName]_%" clause to find those 1,435 events, i.e., Form1_Load. Designing a different/faster way of looking for events, reducing number of queries executed, would significantly increase performance. Have to think about this because there is no direct/easy way to look at a procedure name and say "Hey, that's an event for some object/item", other than positively excluding a procedure, as an event, if it doesn't have an underscore in its name. The remaining procedures, those with an underscore, still need to be verified as an event to prevent stuff like Sub MyCustomProc_VersionA and Sub MyCustomProc_VersionZ being interpreted as events.
Edited: Of those 950 items, there are only 85 unique "items". For example, there could be 25 different textbox items in the project, but each are of the same class: VB.TextBox. Looking at designing a faster method that requires 85 queries vs 950 queries. Doable, but gonna need to track some additional stuff to get there and compare overall speed when the new overhead is introduced.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
DreamManor, I will continue to finish my latest version of this project.
But I don't think I'll be able to significantly improve the speed for you. In one of your recent posts, you mentioned that running Krool's 107 file ComCtlsDemo project, it took 21.20 seconds on your system. On my system, which is 10 years old, it took 8.2 seconds. I don't know how to resolve that large difference and do not think I can do it with code.
The improvements I made to prevent filtering on string/text recordset fields appears to work really well. In that same post, you mentioned that, with the previous version, it took 1.62 seconds after the project was scanned to the point of displaying the nodes. After you used the updated files, that time dropped to 0.19 seconds (8.5x faster). That part of the code is where most of the filtering is occurring.
LaVolpe, You have done a lot for us, much appreciate.
Your project has been great, and for the vast majority of people, its performance is good enough.
I got a lot from this forum and the only thing I can do for you is to do some testing for you. I'm very happy that my big projects can be good test samples. I like to do some extreme tests, for example: load a file containing 1 million lines of code into my golang code editor, although this won't happen in reality.
I always have a lot of work, I hope that one day I can make my own contribution to this forum just like you.
In addition, we have an internal development rule that the performance of the computer used by the developer must be lower than that of the users, so that the software we develop can run smoothly on the user's computer. This is why prjScan scans for a long time on the computer I used for development.
On my test computer (win10), prjScan scans Krool's latest ComCtlsDemo.vbp very fast: (re-scanned a few times)
Code:
Time 1.53790624999965 seconds
Time 1.34859375000087 seconds
Time 1.42934375000186 seconds
Time 1.40837499999907 seconds
Time 1.37512499999866 seconds
Edit:
jpbro's VB6SourceProcessor scans very fast on the computer I used for development, but I haven't had time to carefully research and compare the source code of VB6SourceProcessor and prjScan.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Re-tested on my test computer (win10):
Krool's ComCtlsDemo.vbp(2018-09-07)
Code:
Time 1.12300000000105 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) .024000000001049 seconds
Time .936000000001922 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 2.40000000000009E-02 seconds
Time .942000000000348 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 2.50000000010466E-02 seconds
Time .941000000000464 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 2.49999999977284E-02 seconds
Time .956999999997439 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 2.49999999987196E-02 seconds
Krool's ComCtlsDemo.vbp(2019-09-04)
Code:
Time 1.03199999999715 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 3.09999999974977E-02 seconds
Time .969000000000058 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 2.79999999988938E-02 seconds
Time .965999999997088 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 2.80000000001763E-02 seconds
Time .971999999999184 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 2.80000000010467E-02 seconds
Time .957999999998663 seconds
Time2(Data Clone) 2.80000000033773E-02 seconds
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Hmmm, I just scanned Krool's latest ComCtlsDemo.vbp yet again, with the latest LaVolpe scanned (but before the replacement files in post #122), and got the following:
Attachment 164527
Everything looks fine on my end. It was my understanding that, when the replacement files were inserted, this was just to be used for a speed-test.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
@dreamManor. If you still have that one line commented out to prevent processing procedures (previous PM), that would explain your speed increase from 24 seconds to 1 second. Commenting that line was only to help locate speed bumps in the code; not processing procedures is not really an option.
Regarding no statistics, there is a small bug which would prevent them from being added to the tree in some cases. I found that bug last week. However, in your case, I think the code version you are running has been modified (due to testing) too much. Not only do you not have statistics shown, you don't have the base path shown, nor any imported DLLs shown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamManor
jpbro's VB6SourceProcessor scans very fast on the computer I used for development, but I haven't had time to carefully research and compare the source code of VB6SourceProcessor and prjScan.
Can't really compare jpbro's project with this one. I haven't tried his project because it uses references I don't want to install and requires backing up files to prevent corruption. However, from reading his description of the project, it basically "parses" lines of code. That is about the only thing in common our two projects have together. Again, it is the process of identifying events that is the bottleneck. If we don't try to identify events, we would have amazing parsing times. But events are handled differently from other procedures during validation and not identifying them is not an option. Without identifying them, you would get so many false positive validation warnings, especially during zombie checks, but with other checks also. To see what I mean, jump to the bottom of clsPrjFile.pvProcessProject and comment out the 4 lines of code that call the 4 pvValidateEvents_[xxx] routines.
@All. I'm still going to post one newer version to this and pretty much call it done unless bugs are found down the road. I probably could get better speed for very large projects, but would likely require starting over on much of the core logic -- don't want to invest that much time. Same reason I don't think I'll move this into a VB add-in. If an add-in, I would be able to use VB IDE to locate information for me instead of parsing it out manually.
Do note that all this talk about speed issues are particular to very large projects, those with hundreds of source code files. For your average project, say less than 30 code files, I feel this project's speed is sufficient.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Yes, the discussion about performance should stop, the performance of prjScan is good enough now.
If I have time in the future, I'll try to improve the scanning speed of prjScan for large projects. I'll optimize it from two aspects:
(1) Try to use Sqlite-MemDB
(2) Use a faster array or collection instead of VB.Collection
Looking forward to the new version of prjScan, thank you LaVolpe.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dreammanor
If I have time in the future, I'll try to improve the scanning speed of prjScan for large projects. I'll optimize it from two aspects:
(1) Try to use Sqlite-MemDB
(2) Use a faster array or collection instead of VB.Collection
Looking forward to the new version of prjScan, thank you LaVolpe.
I'll post some test code files in a day or two. Already fixed the bottleneck with identifying control events. I can now scan Krool's project in less than 4 seconds; that's 1/2 the time it took me before. Will get that a bit faster now that I know the new logic works well by applying that logic to the other 3 types of events: WithEvents, Implementation Events, and Class Events
P.S. VB.Collection isn't used often in that project. My updated pvValidateEvents_[xxxx] routines no longer use them. And elsewhere in the project where they are used, they are not that prominent, do not have many entries. I use them more for convenience for little stuff. When possible I prefer a sorted array for binary searching.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
@LaVolpe: Seeking in client-side recordsets w/ Find is dog slow compared to searching by key in a collection + setting recordset bookmark.
Here is a couple of (simplified) helper methods I'm using to speed up recordset seek w/ poor-man's "indexing collections" to explain the idea
thinBasic Code:
Option Explicit
Public Function InitIndexCollection( _
rs As Recordset, _
sFld As String, _
Optional Fld2 As String, _
Optional RetVal As Collection) As Collection
Dim oFld As ADODB.Field
Dim oFld2 As ADODB.Field
Dim vBmk As Variant
Dim pCol As Collection
On Error GoTo QH
Set RetVal = New Collection
With rs
vBmk = .Bookmark
If Not .EOF Or Not .BOF Then
.MoveFirst
End If
If LenB(sFld) <> 0 Then
Set oFld = .Fields(sFld)
End If
If LenB(Fld2) <> 0 Then
Set oFld2 = .Fields(Fld2)
End If
Set pCol = RetVal
If oFld Is Nothing Then
Do
pCol.Add .Bookmark, .Bookmark & vbNullString
.MoveNext
Loop While Not .EOF
ElseIf oFld2 Is Nothing Then
Do
pCol.Add .Bookmark, oFld.Value & vbNullString
.MoveNext
Loop While Not .EOF
Else
Do
pCol.Add .Bookmark, oFld.Value & "#" & oFld2.Value
.MoveNext
Loop While Not .EOF
End If
.Bookmark = vBmk
End With
Set InitIndexCollection = RetVal
Exit Function
QH:
Resume Next
End Function
Public Function SetBookmark( _
rs As Recordset, _
vBmk As Variant, _
Optional Key As Variant) As Boolean
Dim cIndex As Collection
Dim vTemp As Variant
On Error GoTo QH
If IsObject(vBmk) Then
Set cIndex = vBmk
vTemp = cIndex.Item(Key)
If Not IsEmpty(vTemp) Then
rs.Bookmark = vTemp
rs.Bookmark = vTemp
SetBookmark = (rs.Bookmark = vTemp)
End If
ElseIf Not IsEmpty(vBmk) Then
rs.Bookmark = vBmk
rs.Bookmark = vBmk
SetBookmark = (rs.Bookmark = vBmk)
End If
Exit Function
QH:
Resume Next
End Function
Private Sub Form_Load()
Dim rs As Recordset
Dim cIndexID As Collection
Dim cIndexCU As Collection
Set rs = ReadFromExcel("d:\temp\aaa.csv", CsvHeader:=True)
Set cIndexID = InitIndexCollection(rs, "ID")
Set cIndexCU = InitIndexCollection(rs, "CU")
Debug.Print cIndexID.Count, cIndexCU.Count
If SetBookmark(rs, cIndexID, "'{8C0B9B7D-67B4-45F6-B840-E7993D614148}'") Then
Debug.Print rs!ID
End If
If SetBookmark(rs, cIndexCU, "'Dreem'") Then
Debug.Print rs!CU
End If
End Sub
This supports single-column and "composite" indexes btw -- just use "#" to concat values to form seeking key.
cheers,
</wqw>
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
NB LaVolpe, have you recieved my MP?
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Thanks for putting this out LaVolpe; it caught a bunch of Variant declarations that I thought I had fixed years ago!
I'm trying to think of suggestions for further validations to do, but most things just fall under "style guide" type items. I suppose there are some internationalization / localization checks that might be possible (checking for string date literals), but none of the automated checks I can come up with would be particularly useful. Can you think of a way to scan for missing On Error handling in event handler routines?
Edit: It would be nice to have some total statistics for a project group.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Another thing; I don't remember this getting reported before:
I validated a project group with the "Variant vs. String Functions" check and without the Duplicate String Literals check. The Variant vs String results kept getting copied from one project to the next; the last project in the group showed the Variant vs String results of all of the previous projects. This didn't happen with any other validations.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ahenry
Thanks for putting this out LaVolpe; it caught a bunch of Variant declarations that I thought I had fixed years ago!
I'm trying to think of suggestions for further validations to do, but most things just fall under "style guide" type items. I suppose there are some internationalization / localization checks that might be possible (checking for string date literals), but none of the automated checks I can come up with would be particularly useful. Can you think of a way to scan for missing On Error handling in event handler routines?
Edit: It would be nice to have some total statistics for a project group.
jpbro's VB6SourceProcessor should be able to fully meet your requirements.
VB6 Automated Source Code Processing Helper
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
@aHenry. I'll take a look at the Variant vs String oddity you mentioned. See if I can find out why you experienced that. Each project, in a group, creates its own temporary recordset for those types of discrepancies. So, I think it must be a filter I'm using to display the discrepancies and maybe I forgot to ensure the filter included the specific project. That could explain it. Instead of showing them by project, it showed all of them one project to the next. Funny, but not really.
I did consider "On Error" handling reporting; however, I believe that's more of a personal style. Obviously not all procedures need error handling and I think such a check is truly only valuable to those that are in the habit of adding error handling to all routines, something like what MZTools did. The idea of group project statistics is a good idea -- this way we don't have to do mental math ;).
@All. Think I got that speed bump resolved. This is the issue we've been discussing for past several days. Scanning Krool's project (104 files now vs. 107), before I made changes, took 8.2 seconds on my PC. Now it takes 2.82 seconds, nearly 3x faster. On much smaller projects that took 1-2 seconds are done in under 1 second -- much improved with a different way of identifying event procedures. I'll post the new version before end of the month. Still gotta revamp some of the validation portion now that I've gone and rebuilt my core statement & word parser.
@dreamManor and Elroy. Tomorrow, I'll post another zip of replacement files for you guys to play with. When you find the time, please report back on your impression of the speed gain or no gain? Thank you in advance.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
Can't really compare jpbro's project with this one. I haven't tried his project because it uses references I don't want to install and requires backing up files to prevent corruption.
FYI - I know you're firmly in the anti-closed source third party library camp, so I don't expect you to register anything, but I just do want to clarify the "requires backing up files to prevent corruption" comment. As my project currently stands, backups are not a requirement. The project doesn't do any writing back to disk. It does however allow users to modify their source code and subsequently write it back to disk, which is why I provided the warning as a precaution/reminder that you can muck things up if you aren't careful. In it's current form though, there is as close to 0 risk as possible with anything that touches your source files at all.
That said, I always recommend backing up your source files regularly, but especially before touching them with third party software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
However, from reading his description of the project, it basically "parses" lines of code. That is about the only thing in common our two projects have together.
That's correct - right now my project simply splits code files into single physical lines (although logical line support is 90% complete and coming soon). You can then perform regex (or regular InStr) matches against lines of source and make substitutions on those matches as required. The main goal is to create a "Source Object Model" for VB6 code I guess. I personally use it for doing things similar to your project (finding stylistic issues, gotchas, common mistakes, etc...) but the difference is with my project is that devs have to write their own rules/detection routines, and they can automate changes and write them back to disk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
Do note that all this talk about speed issues are particular to very large projects, those with hundreds of source code files. For your average project, say less than 30 code files, I feel this project's speed is sufficient.
I'd like to add that I don't think raw speed is really all that important with projects like this - IMO the idea is that you run them before doing final builds before public distribution to catch potential problems and fix them. Even if it takes 30 minutes, that's not really a big deal as detected problems will save you a tonne of time down the road.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
@jpbro. Regarding logical lines, if you want any "lessons learned" from me, I can certainly offer a few. Looking over your source code I did see some logic that could fail with legitimate logical lines; although it would take someone with a pretty unusual coding style to break a better-than-basic parser.
Logical lines is the reason why I chose not to use InStr, RegEx and others forms of parsing. Not that those can't be used, but in some cases would require going back over the code time and again to catch all the legitimate variations that a logical line can written in, i.e., continuations, etc. I wanted a one-pass solution which is reason this project is parsed the way it is.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
@dreamManor and Elroy. Tomorrow, I'll post another zip of replacement files for you guys to play with. When you find the time, please report back on your impression of the speed gain or no gain? Thank you in advance.
Ok, look forward to your new files. Thank you very much, LaVolpe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jpbro
That's correct - right now my project simply splits code files into single physical lines (although logical line support is 90% complete and coming soon). You can then perform regex (or regular InStr) matches against lines of source and make substitutions on those matches as required. The main goal is to create a "Source Object Model" for VB6 code I guess. I personally use it for doing things similar to your project (finding stylistic issues, gotchas, common mistakes, etc...) but the difference is with my project is that devs have to write their own rules/detection routines, and they can automate changes and write them back to disk.
Hi jpbro, for some time to come, I need to do some parsing of text files (such as HTML and JavaScript). I'm thinking about a question: Is the efficiency of regex higher than VB string functions (Instr, Replace, etc.)?
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dreammanor
Hi jpbro, for some time to come, I need to do some parsing of text files (such as HTML and JavaScript). I'm thinking about a question: Is the efficiency of regular expressions higher than VB string functions (Instr, Replace, etc.)?
No offense meant, but could you PM him instead of using this thread for off-topic questions? Especially when the answer is likely not a simple yes or no. Thank you
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
No offense meant, but could you PM him instead of using this thread for off-topic questions? Especially when the answer is likely not a simple yes or no. Thank you
Sorry for hijacking the thread. However, I think the performance of RegEx is also related to text parsing (project parsing).
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
@jpbro. Regarding logical lines, if you want any "lessons learned" from me, I can certainly offer a few. Looking over your source code I did see some logic that could fail with legitimate logical lines; although it would take someone with a pretty unusual coding style to break a better-than-basic parser.
That's very kind of you, and of course I always welcome input from a master! That said, let me flesh out my logical line code a bit and publish it before you waste any time on my code. If you're in the mood to post some general notes/"gotchas" that would be appreciated, but there's definitely no obligation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
Logical lines is the reason why I chose not to use InStr, RegEx and others forms of parsing.
I agree, for my logical line parsing I'm doing char by char tests with flags to track things like comments, quoted strings, etc... The regex features are there for devs to us *after* lines have been parsed. There's no doubt I've made mistakes though, because I've really only run it against my own coding style, and I know there's tonnes of variation out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
Not that those can't be used, but in some cases would require going back over the code time and again to catch all the legitimate variations that a logical line can written in, i.e., continuations, etc. I wanted a one-pass solution which is reason this project is parsed the way it is.
I also agree with the one-pass solution. My goal is that my project does 1 pass, then the dev can write more complex tests that use regexes/instr/whatever, and can jump back and forth with their matching logic to do some fairly complex stuff. I see that you are a car enthusiast, so my best analogy is that I'm looking for a more manual vs. automatic approach. I'll supply the engine, wheels, and steering - you can be the driver ;)
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
No offense meant, but could you PM him instead of using this thread for off-topic questions? Especially when the answer is likely not a simple yes or no. Thank you
I agree, and I didn't mean to hop on this thread until I saw a bit of commentary on mine. @dreammanor, ideally you can ask questions in my thread or start a new one though - i prefer either over PMs because then everyone gets to learn from the conversation.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jpbro
I agree, and I didn't mean to hop on this thread until I saw a bit of commentary on mine. @dreammanor, ideally you can ask questions in my thread or start a new one though - i prefer either over PMs because then everyone gets to learn from the conversation.
Yes, accept your and LaVolpe's advice, thank you.
Edit: It's weird. In the private message of vbForums, once I send a pm, I can't see it again unless the other party quotes my pm in the reply.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jpbro
I agree, for my logical line parsing I'm doing char by char tests with flags to track things like comments, quoted strings, etc...
Interesting... my more recent parser version does something very similar - flags indicating whether next "word" is an operator, number, continuation, whether "word" ended on space, punctuation, and more. This does help when re-combining split lines and for my project, helping identify Obj.Method format of items inside and outside of With statements.
I'll check back every now and again on your project and wait til you post your latest update. Then I can offer some advice if you haven't addressed some of the stuff I saw when I skimmed your recent version. But here's the biggie and you probably addressed that already: Procedures do not need to start a physical line, nor does the "End Sub/Function/Property" need to start a physical line. And if I recall, you are not testing for procedures/variables that begin with "Static", but not 100% sure on that.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
Interesting... my more recent parser version does something very similar - flags indicating whether next "word" is an operator, number, continuation, whether "word" ended on space, punctuation, and more. This does help when re-combining split lines and for my project, helping identify Obj.Method format of items inside and outside of With statements.
I didn't even think about "With" blocks yet, and you can see from my "comprehensive" list of logical line types, I've also missed events...so maybe my 90% was a bit optimistic :)
My logical line enum type list so far:
Code:
Public Enum e_LogicalLineType
logicallinetype_Empty = &H1& ' Blank line (empty or whitespace only)
logicallinetype_Header = &H2& ' Stuff in the header section of an FRM file, or "Attributes"
logicallinetype_Attribute = &H4& ' Hidden VB attribute (e.g. ProcedureID)
logicallinetype_Option = &H8& ' e.g. Option Explicit
logicallinetype_ConditionalCompilation = &H10& ' e.g. #IF #ELSE #END IF
logicallinetype_Comment = &H20& ' Comment line
logicallinetype_ApiDeclaration = &H40& ' e.g. Declare Sleep lib "user32.dll"
logicallinetype_EnumStart = &H80& ' Start of an Enum e.g. Public Enum MyEnum
logicallinetype_EnumMember = &H100& ' elements/members of an Enum. E.g. enum_MyEnum1, enum_MyEnum2
logicallinetype_EnumEnd = &H200& ' End of en enum, e.g. "End Enum"
logicallinetype_TypeStart = &H400& ' Start of a UDT e.g. Public Type MyType
logicallinetype_TypeMember = &H800& ' Members of a UDT
logicallinetype_TypeEnd = &H1000& ' End of a UDT, e.g "End Type"
logicallinetype_ConstantDeclaration = &H2000& ' e.g. Private Const mc_MyConst As Long = 1
logicallinetype_VariableDeclaration = &H4000& ' e.g. Dim X As Long, Private Y As Integer
logicallinetype_MethodStart = &H8000& ' Sub/Function/Property start line
logicallinetype_MethodEnd = &H10000& ' Sub/Function/Property end line
logicallinetype_Label = &H20000& ' Line label
logicallinetype_Statement = &H40000& ' Regular code line/statement
End Enum
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
I'll check back every now and again on your project and wait til you post your latest update. Then I can offer some advice if you haven't addressed some of the stuff I saw when I skimmed your recent version.
It's an honour for you to have a look, and if there's anything in my project that can help with yours then feel free to take it. When you published your project it inspired me to polish up and release mine, so my hope is that both of our projects can help the remaining VB6 community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
But here's the biggie and you probably addressed that already: Procedures do not need to start a physical line, nor does the "End Sub/Function/Property" need to start a physical line.
That's definitely an issue with my example processor that works on a physical line level, and one of the main reasons I hope to introduce up logical line processing. One "mental" problem I have with the line processing right now is how to handle something like this:
1) You detect a logical line of "Open "Something" For Binary Access Write As #1" and that happens to match the physical line. So you decide to replace it with "Dim ff As Integer" & vbnewline & "ff = FreeFile" & vbnewline & "Open "Something" For Binary Access Write As #ff". Well now you have 3 physical lines replace 1 physical line. I guess I just reparse the file in that case?
2) You detect a logical line of "Open "Something" For Binary Access Write As #1" that appears as physical lines of:
Code:
Open "Something" _
For Binary _
Access Write _
As #1
And then replace it with a single physical line of "Open "Something" For Binary Access Write As #1". 4 physical lines is now 1 physical line. I guess I will just have to reparse after each substitute, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around what to do every possible case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
And if I recall, you are not testing for procedures/variables that begin with "Static", but not 100% sure on that.
You are correct - I didn't even know you could have "Static" procedures!
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
I did it on one of my small projects, (add-in for Outlook), and worked perfectly, finding 5 unused array/variable I left vonluntary.
I tried it on one of my biggest project, it took 2,5h to read the project.
I tried to validate it, then canceled, and lost the loading of the projecT.
Now, did it again, then I 'll validate it again, but it is quite long.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thierry69
I tried to validate it, then canceled, and lost the loading of the projecT.
Now, did it again, then I 'll validate it again, but it is quite long.
Don't use the current project in post #1 for large projects. Later this afternoon, I'm posting some replacement files for the project. Then I'm interested on speed gains for large projects when those replacements are used. However, with the replacement files, validation will be turned off -- the validation portion of the project is no longer compatible with the newer parsing logic and when I fix that I'll re-post the entire project to post #1.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
In fact, I wasn't reading it again, but saving to XML, and I stopped it after 2h
I can test again tomorrow on the big project once you post the new version.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thierry69
I tried it on one of my biggest project, it took 2,5h to read the project.
It seems that your project is 20 times larger than my project. I have not scanned/tested my biggest project, it's 2-3 times larger than my current project.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
One of the project has 480k lines of code
244 forms
62 modules
27 controls
For info, my VBIDEUtils is taking 8 minutes to analyse the whole code and detect dead variables/procedures (not perfect, but 90% of dead variables)
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thierry69
In fact, I wasn't reading it again, but saving to XML, and I stopped it after 2h
Unless there is a reason to save to XML, I wouldn't do it. Export the recordset instead. You can reload that recordset. The XML option was originally added so one could use it later as a reference to address any validation discrepancies noted. With this version, you can actually keep track of what you've "fixed" by hiding the items you've fixed. When you re-export the scan recordset, the state of those hidden items is kept for the next time you reload the scan.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
For any/all that want to test latest changes against very large projects, here is the zip of those replacement files.
Unzip the files into the same folder you downloaded this project to. If you need the original project from post #1, just go and get it at any time. It will remain there for another week at least.
While playing with this "version" of the files, the validation option is turned off. The replacement files aren't ready for production, but are usable as is. I'm hoping that improvement in overall scanning speed has increased for you.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
New PrjScan
(1) Scan Krool's ComCtlsDemo.vbp: Time: 7.421875 seconds
(2) Scan DreamManor's Large.vbp: Time: 164.437999999995 seconds
Very nice, scan time less than 180 seconds is acceptable.
In addition, there is a small bug: (when sName = "X", the software error)
Code:
Private Function pvIsEvent(sName As String) As Boolean
Dim iPos As Long: Dim iLen As Long
iLen = Len(sName)
If iLen > 1 Then '--- DreamManor Added 2019-01-09 ---
iPos = InStrRev(sName, "_", Len(sName) - 1)
End If
Do While iPos > 1
m_EventLUT.Find SetQuery(constGrpIdxID, qryIs, CRCItem(LCase$(Left$(sName, iPos - 1)), True)), , , 1&
If m_EventLUT.EOF = False Then
pvIsEvent = True: Exit Do
End If
iPos = InStrRev(sName, "_", iPos - 1)
Loop
End Function
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dreammanor
New PrjScan
(1) Scan Krool's ComCtlsDemo.vbp: Time: 7.421875 seconds
(2) Scan DreamManor's Large.vbp: Time: 164.437999999995 seconds
Very nice, scan time less than 180 seconds is acceptable.
That large project of yours is the one that took 425 seconds before? If so, I'm satisfied with the improvement too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dreammanor
In addition, there is a small bug: (when sName = "X", the software error)
Good catch, I didn't even consider 1 character procedure names
Thanx for giving these changes a test. Now I can focus on fixing conflicts in parsing with the new routines... for example, items declared as arrays don't parse correctly now -- but an easy fix
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Hey LaVolpe,
You're probably not interested, but I did come up with a few additional ideas that your scanner might examine:
- constant type not specified in declaration
- intellisense fix not performed for enumeration
- a Function, Sub, or Property declared with no Private, Public, or Friend specification
- ---
- implicit typecasting in variable-from-variable assignment
- implicit typecasting in variable-from-literal assignment
- implicit typecasting in variable-from-expression assignment
- implicit typecasting in constant-from-literal assignment
- implicit typecasting in constant-from-expression assignment
- implicit typecasting in constant-from-constant assignment
- implicit typecasting in arguments of a call (sub, function, etc)
Some of this is quite nit-picky, but it is stuff that I try and clean-up when I'm mucking around in various VB6 source code areas.
In any fairly large project, I doubt we'd be able to clean up every speck of that, but I do try to clean up as much of it as I can.
And again, a FANTASTIC project. VERY impressive.
Best Regards,
Elroy
EDIT2: Added a couple more to the list.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Not interested? Hardly. Not persuaded? Possibly ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elroy
*constant type not specified in declaration
*intellisense fix not performed for enumeration
*a Function, Sub, or Property declared with no Private, Public, or Friend specification
Though above may be a preference for some, they are not what I would consider something worth pointing out during validations. Just not persuaded. I think this is more for apps like MZTools and their ilk vs. what I was attempting with this project; i.e., potential for oops/efficiency vs. coding style
- Constants don't need type-declarations. Per Microsoft, they get their type from their values. For example, Const Author = "LaVolpe" is same as Const Author As String = "LaVolpe". This is why the project doesn't report constants that aren't specifically var-typed as a validation discrepancy.
- Intellisense "fixes" are a personal preference. Note: though typically used for enums, this fix can apply to parameters/variables/procedures too. How many times have you pasted an API with a hWnd parameter spelled "hwnd" and see all your hWnd variable/property names change to lower case?
- Declaring procedure scope is not required and "Public" is default if not explicitly declared. I think many know that and simply don't type the extra 6 characters: Public. And I think this is another case of preference. Though this one suggestion I am considering as it can apply not only to procedures, but for Constants, APIs and UDTs also where the Public/Private declaration is optional in bas-modules for the latter two, but required in other code files. If I do include it, I'll just initialize it as an unselected option.
- Regarding the variant type-casting items, if I understand your intent, is not really doable. Why? Well, I may track items to see if they are used (zombie checks), but I make no attempt to track parsed items and how they are used nor what they are passed to/from. Although I agree with your suggestion, I definitely won't be going there.
Regarding Enums, here's maybe not a completely known fact by many VBers...
Question: What's wrong with this?
Code:
Private Enum NotWhatYouExpect
nwyeSng = 1.789 ' Single
nwyeInt = 123% ' Integer, note VB will remove the %, but technically Integer value
nwyeDate = #1/1/2001# ' Date
nwyeStr = "123E+5" ' String
End Enum
Answer: syntactically nothing. However, the real value of the enum members are longs, always longs. VB can accept any enum member value as long as it can be converted to Long. The Long value will be used in code.
I think one can argue that pointing out not explicitly type declaring variables and leaving VB to default to Variant might be a personal preference, along with not using Option Explicit. In this case, we know there are pitfalls with variants that can be avoided. So, I feel that those scenarios should be pointed out. As for unexpected results, here's an example:
Code:
Dim v1, v2
v1 = "6789": v2 = 6789
MsgBox v1 > v2
MsgBox v1 = v2
' now try again after changing declares to: Dim v1 As String, v2 As Long
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LaVolpe
That large project of yours is the one that took 425 seconds before?
Yes.
-
Re: [vb6] Project Scanner
I tested the new version on my large project.
It seemed a little bit faster.
I found
- a few variables unused
- a few functions returning variant.
- a few functions that should be declared as sub
And also A LOT of optional parameters unused. it could be a parameter to not check this
A great enhancement could be to jump directly into VB6 at the right place where the code is.
For the moment, manual research, so takes time
Maybe add in the menu over a procedure/function etc... Copy the name to the clipboard, so can be paste in the Debug area to go to the definition
A variable was declared like :
Dim sFile
And used as iterator for a collection, and throw it as an error.
I added "As Variant", but maybe, should not be thrown as a warning
Otherwise, it helped me to optimize/clean a bit.
