I had hoped eventually AP and Sweeper would offer the option at start to scan & verify either select releases or all releases via a dialog checkbox that would list every release present with an All Releases option at the top of the list.
A possible suggestion for Sweeper
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
Its possible to do. Since the RTI's store path information and now the releases are sorted by directories its quite easy to just ignore paths not in the chosen releases. Soon as I finish recreating the wheel with the dll I had to just stop using and create my own. Needed to do it eventually anyways since the dll will possibly be fazed out by Microsoft since its pre .NET, VB stuff that isn't officially supported anymore. They just tell you that .NET has functions that are similar but, not quite as useful.
Right now I am recreating the entire Folder, File, Textstream, and FileSystemObject classes of that scrrun.dll. They are frigging useful for damn near everything. Having a .NET version of these will be nice going forward.
Edit: ohh ya, I read that some AV suits block using the dll with non-signed apps since viruses make heavy use of the awesome functions in it.
Right now I am recreating the entire Folder, File, Textstream, and FileSystemObject classes of that scrrun.dll. They are frigging useful for damn near everything. Having a .NET version of these will be nice going forward.
Edit: ohh ya, I read that some AV suits block using the dll with non-signed apps since viruses make heavy use of the awesome functions in it.
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
ok new VB.net sweeper is 77k while current stable is 116k. Sweeper is now working and should be deploy able to others with only needing 7za and .net 2.0. Some testing in progress.
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
Lookin' forward to the next update, Sweeper is such a great addition to the AP projectTheAPGuy wrote:ok new VB.net sweeper is 77k while current stable is 116k. Sweeper is now working and should be deploy able to others with only needing 7za and .net 2.0. Some testing in progress.
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
Testing revealed a few bugs with easily correctable solutions. I think I can release this. THIS is the direct conversion from vb6 to vb.net. The other code is not enabled.
Attached is the executable only. Its named differently so you don't overwrite the older sweeper. They can both coexist. It should run exactly the same as older sweeper except some minor differences in the logging.
Attached is the executable only. Its named differently so you don't overwrite the older sweeper. They can both coexist. It should run exactly the same as older sweeper except some minor differences in the logging.
- Attachments
-
- TheSweeper.7z
- (24.33 KiB) Downloaded 835 times
- Whatacrock
- Release Maintainer
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:47 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
Gave "The Sweeper" a testing run in my AIO, ran normally and then received 2 notifications --- In HashModule.HashFile At Line 106
These 2 notifications refer to Windows XP x86\Components\TweakUI
Ran The Sweeper with verbose switch...
Log file provided to shed some light...
These 2 notifications refer to Windows XP x86\Components\TweakUI
Ran The Sweeper with verbose switch...
Log file provided to shed some light...
► Show Spoiler
"Now if you Sons of B*@ches got anything else to say, NOW'S THE F@#%ING TIME!!"
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
They can coexist kinda, you'll need to edit ap.ini to compensate for the twips(?) to pixels differences when sizing the screen - boy are they different. Sweeper 2.0 didn't like the dimensions that worked for 1.0 at all. Here's the numbers I used.TheAPGuy wrote:Testing revealed a few bugs with easily correctable solutions. I think I can release this. THIS is the direct conversion from vb6 to vb.net. The other code is not enabled.
Attached is the executable only. Its named differently so you don't overwrite the older sweeper. They can both coexist. It should run exactly the same as older sweeper except some minor differences in the logging.
Code: Select all
Sweeper 2.0
SweepFormWidth=600
SweepFormHeight=300
Sweeper 1.0
SweepFormWidth=9000
SweepFormHeight=4500
I know it's a bit premature but a screenshot of both 1.0 & 2.0 idling. It's comin' along, look forward to seeing how it functions with more features.
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
Well to be fair... the memory footprint is probably due to my personal classes that handle what scrrun.dll used to do for me. Description LINKY. Folder is heavily used to page through the the clients system indexing things. Now that its working I can trim things down and I KNOW I can make it much less of a memory hog in that department.
Also... ya vb.net uses the standard pixels per inch instead of twips. I totally forgot about that when it comes to it saving/reloading values.
Also... ya vb.net uses the standard pixels per inch instead of twips. I totally forgot about that when it comes to it saving/reloading values.
- Whatacrock
- Release Maintainer
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:47 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
Performed a little more testing and found out why The Sweeper reported on the following:
This occurred due to the fact that these 2 files are attributed as "Read Only" --- removed the Read Only and The Sweeper behaved normally..
Would appear that the file attributes need changing by the script but am unsure what is required to do so, need feedback from TheAPGuy
► Show Spoiler
Would appear that the file attributes need changing by the script but am unsure what is required to do so, need feedback from TheAPGuy
"Now if you Sons of B*@ches got anything else to say, NOW'S THE F@#%ING TIME!!"
Re: A possible suggestion for Sweeper
just the read only status? huh. Well if you want to use the dos command in the script its just PreAction=attrib -R <file>
Damn the issue was because when I open the file I used a standard open file command without specifying access needs which defaults to read/write access when we only really need read. I corrected the code. The next version I put out will have that corrected.
Damn the issue was because when I open the file I used a standard open file command without specifying access needs which defaults to read/write access when we only really need read. I corrected the code. The next version I put out will have that corrected.