Unable to read VBA if contains a PROJECTCOMPATVERSION record. about vbprojectparser

[fabianoliver]

Hi @rogergmagnificentamazing ,

Thanks for raising this. PRs for both a .NET version facelift, as well as the PROJECTCOMPATVERSION would be much appreciated. I've had had much chance to use this project myself lately anymore, but of course happy to have a look at PRs addressing this.

Another fix could be to instead of the code relying on the records in a specific order is to loop checking the record type and then calling the appropriate code based on the record type. Could also then skip unknown record types.

That sounds very slightly preferential to me - if you find that difficult to wire up, just ignoring and/ore optionally parsing the new record sound perfectly fine to me as well. Ultimately, it's probably "just" a trade-off between reducing the chance of breaks in the future, vs. increasing the odds of possibly relevant future additions being "silently ignored", so I don't think either way is definitely better here (aside from maybe introducing an option to toggle ignoring vs throwing on unknown sections - but no need to overcomplicate things).

Thanks a lot,
Fabian

[rogergmagnificentamazing]

Ack. I am on holiday for a few weeks but will then try to put some pull requests together for you to review at your convenience. From: Fabian ***@***.***> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 5:33 PM To: fabianoliver/VbProjectParser ***@***.***> Cc: Roger Grambihler ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [fabianoliver/VbProjectParser] Unable to read VBA if contains a PROJECTCOMPATVERSION record. (Issue #2) Hi @rogergmagnificentamazing<https://github.com/rogergmagnificentamazing> , Thanks for raising this. PRs for both a .NET version facelift, as well as the PROJECTCOMPATVERSION would be much appreciated. I've had had much chance to use this project myself lately anymore, but of course happy to have a look at PRs addressing this. Another fix could be to instead of the code relying on the records in a specific order is to loop checking the record type and then calling the appropriate code based on the record type. Could also then skip unknown record types. That sounds very slightly preferential to me - if you find that difficult to wire up, just ignoring and/ore optionally parsing the new record sound perfectly fine to me as well. Ultimately, it's probably "just" a trade-off between reducing the chance of breaks in the future, vs. increasing the odds of possibly relevant future additions being "silently ignored", so I don't think either way is definitely better here (aside from maybe introducing an option to toggle ignoring vs throwing on unknown sections - but no need to overcomplicate things). Thanks a lot, Fabian — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#2 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BELEYBWXZGG5CXB2GT2B2N3ZENG35AVCNFSM6AAAAABICHFPY6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZTG4YDKNZXHE>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>

[rogergmagnificentamazing]

proposed fixed with pull request: #6

[rogergmagnificentamazing]

Fixed with pull request #6