The Weird and The Wonderful

Lol... that was a typo. Thanks Adrian0. Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

A common one in this forum is functions used that don't actually do anything. Well here is one I have just found too...

public static bool ToBoolean(bool value);

...forget where I seen this now Laugh | :laugh:

(no wonder it is seen so often, people obviously read too much documentation lol)

PS. I am assuming most no exactly where I found this Convertion function

return 5;

It not really a horror, is it? It does say it does no conversion in MSDN[^]
I would say it is just there to complete the set: Convert.ToInt32 and so forth are there too.

Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.

As I said. People post these 'Do Nothing' functions all the time. I was simple pointing this one out as these are obviously OK if MS says so

return 5;

Actually very handy if you are passing a object type which has an underlying value of type bool. Good code should always be strongly typed but maybe when dealing with COM objects, this overloaded method could be handy.

Robert Croll wrote:
Actually very handy if you are passing a object type which has an underlying value of type bool

But this specific function does not take an object. It takes a bool and returns a bool. Just wasted code in any usage

return 5;

For those who desperately need self-validation.

I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.

I love (unending) recursive methods...
I recently had one which took me some time to fix too.
I needed to get a list with all the controls in a form.

Some code calls this function with the current form as obj and an empty list of controls as list.

Private Sub GetControls(Byval obj as Control, ByRef list as List (Of Control))

For each ctl as Control in obj.Controls
   If ctl.Controls.Count > 0
      GetControls(obj, list)
      list.Add(ctl)
   Else
      list.Add(ctl)
   End If
Next ctl

End Sub

I just didn't see I kept passing on the same form over and over again Laugh | :laugh:

Even better is a recursive method I recently found in production code.
Our company uses their own controls which have a Mandatory property.
So before saving data we want to check if all controls that have Mandatory set to true have a value.
I don't remember the actual names of the methods, but it doesn't really matter anyway Wink | ;)

Public Sub Save()
' Some code here

If canSave(Me) Then
   SaveNew()
End If

' Some more code here
End Sub

Private Function canSave(ByVal obj as Control) As Boolean
Dim bool as Boolean = True

For each ctl as Control in obj.Controls
   If ctl.Controls.Count > 0
      canSave(ctl)
      If TypeOf ctl is CompanyControl Then
         Dim cctl As CompanyControl = ctl
         If cctl.Mandatory AndAlso cctl.Value = "" Then
            bool = False
         End If
      End If
   Else
      If TypeOf ctl is CompanyControl Then
         Dim cctl as CompanyControl = ctl
         If cctl.Mandatory AndAlso cctl.Value = "" Then
            bool = False
         End If
      End If
   End If
Next ctl

Return bool

End Function

The form it was used on had only 3 controls outside a container.
So I added a mandatory field on a tab, kept it empty and...
See how that would return true in most cases? Smile | :)

modified on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:35 PM

The horror here is not only that these methods do not do what they are supposed to do. The fact is that the implementation itself is really poor. Seems that the programmer got paid according to the number of lines of code he wrote.

Well... Actually I (the new developer) has to pay Frown | :(

:P

Hopefully the programmer was so called "Senior". That's a tough call for a junior programmer.

The root of the problem is that it's done in VB...

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997

Found this in the daily WTF.

C#

private IAlertDocument CompareObjectAsIAlertDocumentOrNullIfNotCastable(object compareObject) {
    return compareObject as IAlertDocument;
}

What do you think? I can follow this pattern:

C#

string GetAStringThatRepresentsTheObjectPassedAsAnObjectParameterSoItWorksForAnyObject(object obj)
{
    return obj.ToString();
}

_Erik_ wrote:
string GetAStringThatRepresentsTheObjectPassedAsAnObjectParameterSoItWorksForAnyObject(object obj)
{
return obj.ToString();
}

You forgot part of the method name...
It should be... GetAStringThatRepresentsTheObjectPassedAsAnObjectParameterSoItWorksForAnyObjectAsLongAsTheObjectIsNotNull

I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.

Damn it!! I thought I could follow the pattern!! Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

Throw new UserFellAsleepAtTheKeyboardException(me)

Dwayne J. Baldwin

Before I get started, some background:
gr1d[^] is a (very new) persistent multiplayer programming AI game: the idea is you code your agents and upload them, and let them do their thing. (Check it out, if you haven't!)

Now, with these agents, they have to inherit an interface. For brevity, I'll reduce it to the relevant details:

Public Class πRateSapient
Implements gr1d.API.Agent.IPirate1

...

Public Sub Tick(ByVal agentUpdate As Gr1d.Api.Agent.IAgentUpdateInfo) Implements ...
 ' Logic here
End Sub

(VB is NOT the code horror, thank you very much! :P )

Now, in my infinite wisdom, I started some abstractions. This included building it so all AIs under that schema (my search/claim/don't go picking fights) operated under the same logic.
How'd I do this? Well:

Public Module Logic

<Extension()>
Public Sub Tick(ByVal agent As πRateSapient, ByVal update As Agent.IAgentUpdateInfo)
 ' Logic here
End Sub

...
Can you see where this is going? I didn't.

Public Class πRateSapient
Implements gr1d.API.Agent.IPirate1

...

Public Sub Tick(ByVal agentUpdate As Gr1d.Api.Agent.IAgentUpdateInfo) Implements ...
 Me.Tick(agentUpdate)
End Sub

...
No debugging, no thought put into it, I just thought it'd call the extension method.
Whoops. And yeah, it was sloooow.

Moral of the story folks: think about your damn naming conventions, especially if you're using extension methods!!!
D'Oh! | :doh:

(And I was wondering why my agents did nothing!)

(Also, may I mention that running the game logic, and the site, on the same instance is also a bit of a horror?)

Hope you laughed. Laugh | :laugh:

[edit]
To be fair, I wasn't the only one with a recursive loop. But I sure as hell didn't help. xD
[/edit]

Don't forget to rate my post if it helped! Wink | ;)

"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
"His mother should have thrown him away, and kept the stork."
"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure."
"He loves nature, in spite of what it did to him."

modified on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:05 AM

Note that extension methods with the same name and signature as an interface or class method will never be called.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx[^]

Dwayne J. Baldwin

Kinda learned that one, didn't I? :P

Don't forget to rate my post if it helped! Wink | ;)

"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
"His mother should have thrown him away, and kept the stork."
"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure."
"He loves nature, in spite of what it did to him."

Last time I tried to even check the site out, it was at a crawl.

Not a new horror, nonetheless something tells me this If statement may be redundant...

fileName = ""

If Len(fileName) = 0 Then
    fileName = Left(DBEngine.Workspaces(0).Databases(0).Name, i) & "REF"
End If

Even the fileName = "" is redundant here.

Hmmm, tricky.

Give me a few hours and I'll get back to you on that one...

8)

Well, stating the obvious, it's quite likely that, either the coder didn't want to rely on code never being inserted between the initializer and guard, or, more likely, the coder added the initializer later, probably to test the guard.

Hey, you never know...

There may have been code between the initialiser and the if statement that has since been removed.

It might actually be a better piece of coding than you think. You always have the option of inserting some more code between the two and it might stand a chance of still working. Wink | ;)