|
Thanks! 
Just posted a link to the very simple classes that do that right above!
The Lounge
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen stuff like that and I don't like it.
First of all, it obscures code.
It's really very annoying to have your code littered with new TimeCriticalBlock(something => { ...}) (or probably something like that).
Then comes logging, which is even more clutter.
I've seen code that was about 50% diagnostics... And the diagnostics usually didn't even matter (I've never needed it)!
Add to that that everything works fine in our own environment, but the customer refuses to invest in a decent server... So in production everything in twice as slow.
All those kinds of tests would pass in development and fail in production.
And the last thing I want when my code isn't up to speed anyway... Is for it to break as well! That's really adding insult to injury 
Perhaps it would be a nice idea if the code was inserted at compile time (code weaving?) and then stored metrics somewhere and gave the team a warning (email or something) when the code was slower than could be expected on production.
|
|
|
|
|
First the aesthetics aspect.
Apparently you would prefer some kind of (so called) aspect oriented programming over a simple using statement, why not, whatever rocks your boat man!
On a "where to put your effort kind of things" aspect is a well known .NET programming technique since at least 2003 (see Aspect-Oriented Programming ) which has failed to garner much of any success or enthusiasm since then... As far as I am concerned it is not even worth wasting time trying to use.
I understand your preferences are different, maybe use GitHub - Fody , seem to be easy to put into practice...
As for the rest why would you pass a callback in the constructor? I am curious as to what were you thinking?
For the record here is the implementation I am currently using:
The Lounge
Finally all those "tests" (more like debug time code break) are only meant to valid that your code is performant, as you can see on my implementation, whether it runs slow or not on production has little to no effect and is, in theory, completely irrelevant.
The idea is to attract and awake the developer attention, much like an exception would.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, didn't see your implementation yet.
The using statement certainly makes it better than what I've seen, although using a callback means you can also log any input and output parameters (which is what the code I came across also did).
I'm not a fan of AOP, it caused me more trouble than added benefit.
I am curious though, why not put the timing in a unit test?
That way you can test your code for speed without actually touching your code, but your build will still break.
Of course you won't have the benefit of the log statement in production (but how often do you check that, really?).
|
|
|
|
|
In fact putting the speed test in a unit test would be a very good idea!
Unfortunately in the companies I have been working so far, unit test haven't been a very popular approach.
Not that they dislike them mind you!
More like they usually fall into disrepair... And on-going new revised specifications put a lot of pressure on maintaining existing ones.
I did write some for the low level utilities I created which are still valid (I am often the go to guy for low level utilities) but most of the few high level business model integration tests I have been writing so far have almost all been deprecated by too many model and specifications changes....
|
|
|
|
|
As for the logs... our acceptance server run as a console app for now, as we are constantly monitoring its output! 
Granted there is way too much output, but it's still readable! 
Log are also in a file.. But it's easier to read in the console (just click on it) and easier to update the server (just stop, copy files, and restart)
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Log are also in a file.. But it's easier to read in the console (just click on it) and easier to update the server (just stop, copy files, and restart)
Under *nix there is the command tail and graphical or non graphical derivatives; under Windows there are similar utilities (my favourite is baretail). They allow you to "follow" files as they're written and the graphical utilities often have an integrated filtering system to automatically format strings that match a certain criteria (e.g you can put on red background all the strings containing the word "error").
CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"Go ahead, make my day"
|
|
|
|
|
yeah tail is good..
but it's not like using the console here is a no brainer here! 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The using statement certainly makes it better
Hi, Sandor,
I'm curious: I don't see any use of 'using in the code; are you referring to the use of the '#if DEBUG' compiler directive ?
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
It's the usage of the class.
using (new TimedBlock())
{
}
Also, you're consistently spelling my name wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: This way, if the code slow down more than acceptable... the developer got an automatic reminder by the system while debugging!
Its a great idea, but I don't think it'll do anything meaningful. In my experience, most algorithmic slowdown isn't because a single operation takes oodles longer than it used to, but because many iterations are done on some code that's just a slight bit slower than it used to be.
I guess if you have strict performance goals on certain operations that don't depend on input data, and can limit the timing checking to only measuring debug/release & executed-in-debugger/not-executed-in-debugger & with-breakpoints-set/with-no-breakpoints set, then yeah, maybe it would be useful. Like others have said, measuring performance really is a job for a unit test, where all that can be controlled.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAAaaaaaaaarrrrgggghhh! Leslie got me!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Phishing email scam utilizes keylogger malware to steal sensitive information[^]
I recently got an email with a Word attachment that insisted I install Silverlight in order to view the attachment. I did run the install in a moment of stupidity, but immediately realized my mistake. So I re-imaged my systems drive from a recent image to get rid of any potential malware. I also changed all my critical passwords with financial institutions.
I have suggested it before, but I really wish we had a Security Forum on CP, where members can exchange data about such malware to benefit all of us.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
modified 17-Jan-17 19:29pm.
|
|
|
|
|
..there does not have to be a specific forum for your question, if there's no category that fits than pick the closest thing to it.
Then again, you are simply opening an unsafe document with macro's; you know how that works
If you want to know whether you can detect a keylogger, the answer is no.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: detect a keylogger
Um, depending on how it's written, a software one can most likely be detected. A hardware one, most likely not.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz< wrote: Um, depending on how it's written, a software one can most likely be detected.
Yes, would be nice if you knew what you were looking for then 
--edit
There was an article about hooks on The Old New Thing, but I cannot find it at the moment.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: If you want to know whether you can detect a keylogger, the answer is no.
Yes you can. A keylogger needs to register a hook with SetWindowsHookEx win32 API.
That said, although tricky, you can detect installed global hooks. And somebody has already done it: GitHub - prekageo/winhook.
It would be a tricky task to monitor and detect legit from malware global hooks. But it is possible.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Very nice of you to report your moment of fog on this, because if it could get an advanced tech user such as yourself (being a developer) it can definitely get other non-tech users.
Sorry you went through that.
EDIT
BTW - I use VirusTotal - Free Online Virus, Malware and URL Scanner[^] for these types of things.
Would love to see the results for your scan of that download.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Sorry you went through that.
Thanks, but there was no harm done in the end, and it did serve to make me more careful.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm familiar with VirusTotal, but did not think of using it before I deleted the offending email with its attachment and all.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
I became so suspicious, that last week I deleted a bunch of emails from CEO, because it came via the new attendance system...
Not that it matters after all - I do not use that system, so it was sent to me by mistake anyway...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Look on the bright side - at least you had the backup. Most non-professionals don't even have one.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: at least you had the backup. Most non-professionals don't even have one.
As Sean would say: "Inconceivable!"
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
