Cali_West
Cali_West
CC#
Created by Chop on 4/12/2025 in #help
✅ AUTOCLICKER
oh it has its own server. thanks for the invite 😄
42 replies
CC#
Created by Chop on 4/12/2025 in #help
✅ AUTOCLICKER
yeah I have ahk
42 replies
CC#
Created by Chop on 4/12/2025 in #help
✅ AUTOCLICKER
Oh really. okay. It got me thinking: there may some difficult tasks to perform in Windows purely via keyboard shortcut that might be able to be made a bit simpler if you could mock the mouse as part of it
42 replies
CC#
Created by Chop on 4/12/2025 in #help
✅ AUTOCLICKER
Is SendInput a .NET API?
42 replies
CC#
Created by Chop on 4/12/2025 in #help
✅ AUTOCLICKER
I'm gonna go ahead and assume the use case was for gaming. But I can think of an actual legit use case for mouse-click mocking: QA testing.
42 replies
CC#
Created by Pheonick on 2/26/2025 in #help
IIncrementalGenerator and "Inheritance margin" feature hitting removed files
One thought though: isn't the generated class supposed to be partial? I can't remember
4 replies
CC#
Created by Pheonick on 2/26/2025 in #help
IIncrementalGenerator and "Inheritance margin" feature hitting removed files
So I guess what I'm doing is trying to raise your issue back up to the top by commenting on it, so that maybe someone who does know what's wrong with your generator will see it and post.
4 replies
CC#
Created by Pheonick on 2/26/2025 in #help
IIncrementalGenerator and "Inheritance margin" feature hitting removed files
I recently ventured into creating a source generator. Followed the same series of articles that it looks like you did. I kind of got it working. It worked when using the snapshot tester Verify. It did not work when I packaged it into a nupkg file and installed it as a package reference in a completely separate solution. It correctly installed, it saw all the namespaces in the package, but it had no idea what my attribute was. Somehow that didn't work.
4 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
rubber ducking. Very effective. I concur. Look it up @DDmax500
28 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
Oh I see what you're saying: if the parts you're building things with in the dark have all been unit tested thoroughly, it's easier to code for longer in the dark that way. Yes, I agree.
28 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
Unit tests are turning on the light, so to speak. In my opinion anyway.
28 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
Yeah I only mentioned that because that's one of the reasons why you end up saying things like:
I get an idea to add to my code and I start to try and make it a reality. And thats where I get stuck. Its either my code dosent work as planned or dosent work at all.
So, at some point between when you got the idea and when you tested it and realized it doesn't work, that's the time you spent in the dark. And at some point during that time, you erred and did something wrong. The quicker you iterate by testing what you have, the quicker you can spot where you've gone wrong and correct it.
28 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
Sometimes, it's rather difficult to avoid though. Just depends on the problem you're trying to solve.
28 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
But even if you do know (or think you know) exactly how you're going to build something, it's always nice to be able to shine a light on your progress so far by being able to actually execute/test it.
28 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
Usually the more you know exactly what you're going to do ahead of time and there's no sense of "I'll figure it out when I cross that bridge" type of thinking, the more you can code in the dark and get away with it.
28 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
No, I just mean, let's say you're at a point where you have something working. It runs and does what you expect. Okay great. Now when you go to modify it (first commit what you have to your local repo of course), try and keep the number of things you modify between now (a state that you know works) and where you end up (a state that needs to be tested and you don't know for sure if it works) as small as you possibly can, like incrementally built up. I call the period of time when you're adding changes that are as-of-yet untested "coding in the dark" because anything you've added you won't have full confidence that it works until you test it, and these can compound on each other if some part you built in the dark uses another part you built in the dark, etc. I've built entire programs in the dark and had them miraculously come out working either right away or after some minor modifications, but I've also tried to do the same thing before, got lost in a deep dark rabbithole, and ended up wasting a bunch of time. So I advise against doing that. That's what I'm saying.
28 replies
CC#
Created by DDmax500 on 2/22/2025 in #help
Stuck in tutorial hell
Also try to code as little as possible "in the dark", so to speak. (That's what I call the period of times between compile + test runs.) Sometimes it can't be avoided, you have to code quite a bit in the dark, but it's always best to just get something working, okay good. Now make a small change and test that. Okay good, etc etc.
28 replies
CC#
Created by Cali_West on 11/26/2024 in #help
✅ How much validation should be performed against the CQRS command itself vs in the handler?
okay
13 replies