|
Me too[^] 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Went over to the shops at lunch and picked up 2 of the Pixel 2 XL phones and phones cases. Got a couple of 15k power banks and lightning to headphone adapters for the kids iPhones.
Now have to see if I can find time over the weekend to move us across to them. Got to catch up with a couple of my customers and get some work done as I haven't been able to get to them during the week due to current contract job.
Last time I install some wonder app from the Play Store on each phone and told the new one to receive and the old one to push to get Contacts, SMS, Photos and other stuff across.
Anyone know if that is still the best way? Also is there a way to get my Contacts in a format easily edited on a computer and put back to the phone? Want to remove a lot but not delete them forever in case I need them in the future and poking around through the phone is a pain in the arse.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
I do not care about SMS so don't know about that. For photos, I will sync the ones I want to my Google account and when I login to another phone, it all comes by itself.
Has Anyone Seen Mike Hunt wrote: Also is there a way to get my Contacts in a format easily edited on a computer and put back to the phone?
If your contacts are backed up to your Google account, you can see and edit them here.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Faarrrkkkk no, nothing from my phone backed up to Google anything storage or cloud thingy.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
You could do it if you want. Or else, Titanium backup is something you can use. It has been around for a while and does work well. I have not used it for at least ~5 years now so don't know ow it is today.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
And no, this isn't a programming question in the lounge. I started asking this question in the QA forum because it had me totally stumped. As I was filling out the "What I've tried" I had a major moment.
To prove I'm not asking for help on the lounge, I posted a solution on my blog. You'll need to use the password "fizbin" as the blog post is specifically for this lounge post and eventually I'll delete the post.
It is a fun one though.
Here's the code:
public class ModelDataContext : DataContext
{
public static ModelDataContext Context;
public ModelDataContext(DbConnection conn) : base(conn)
{
Context = this;
}
}
class Program
{
static ModelDataContext mdc = new ModelDataContext(new SqlConnection("[some string]"));
static void CreateNewContext(DataContext context, out SqlConnection conn, out DataContext newContext)
{
conn = new SqlConnection(context.Connection.ConnectionString);
newContext = (DataContext)Activator.CreateInstance(context.GetType(), new object[] { conn });
Console.WriteLine(context == newContext);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SqlConnection conn2;
DataContext newdc;
CreateNewContext(ModelDataContext.Context, out conn2, out newdc);
Console.WriteLine(ModelDataContext.Context == newdc);
}
}
and the result is:
False
True
Why is the second equality True when the first is False???
And for the bonus prize, what's a fix?
|
|
|
|
|
No interest to solve the puzzle. For me it goes in the same direction like "Code Puzzler vs. Dumbing down code so it can be maintained by junior devs". Do we really Need to write code where we Need first to solve a puzzle to get what the code is doing 
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: Do we really Need to write code where we Need first to solve a puzzle to get what the code is doing
Well, this is different. It's a stupid bug on my part. But it's like language. If you can speak at more than a 3rd grade level, you can express your thoughts better. 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: If you can speak at more than a 3rd grade level, you can express your thoughts better
No idea what this means, sounds only I'm undeveloped 
Btw. I'm aware, I'm most probably not able to solve the puzzle
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You probably could, with a bit of thinking about it - it's obvious when you see it, but it's a stinker to spot if you didn't write the code (and probably even harder if you did if you are anything like me: I tend to see what I meant to write, rather than what I did  )
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I also see what I meant to write as opposed to what I actually wrote. I've been tired and looked at two spellings of same word and get compiler errors and don't spot the error for some time.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Annoying, isn't it? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes very frustrating.
As I get older it seems to be more prevalent.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I tend to see what I meant to write, rather than what I did
Yup that's me!
As an answer: I haven't gone further in the thread, but at first glance the FALSE comes from comparing 2 different instances, where the TRUE result is comparing the same instance to itself?
Fix: the first comparison is not necessary
|
|
|
|
|
Roughly 90 seconds, mostly working out which Console.WriteLine call was which. 
Spoilers ahead - select the block to view:
Take a copy of the static field;
Create a new instance, thus overwriting the static field;
Compare the new instance to the copy of the old value of the static field - result = false;
Compare the new instance to the current value of the static field - result = true;
Damnit Chris, we need a <div class="spoiler">!
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: select the block to view:
Now THAT is snazzy!
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a problem? Does it need to be fixed?
I wouldn't presume to say that you didn't write exactly what you intended.
Setting a static on each instantiation is unusual though.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that you're assigning a static variable inside the instance constructor to that instance . So every time you create an object you're changing the Context property. The reason the tests are different is because you pass the Context as a parameter so even after the update the parameter still has the old Context.
A fix would be to not do that because it's bad design  I'd make Context an instance property and implement your own ==, !=, Equals, etc unless you want referential equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Just read the blog post, and I don't think your fix will work.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
It will work in that specific example because he also changed the CreateInstance call to not use conn anymore. But yes, if the parameterized constructor is called it'll still have the same issue 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it will "work", in the sense that it won't overwrite the static instance.
But it won't work, in the sense that the returned instance will be using the default connection string for the context, not the connection string from the instance passed in.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: But it won't work, in the sense that the returned instance will be using the default connection string for the context, not the connection string from the instance passed in.
Hmm. But the parameterless constructor uses the connection string of the (hopefully) already initialized context:
public ModelDataContext() : base(Context.Connection)
However, it's a moot point anyways as I refactored the whole mess into something much less weird.
It'll be an interesting question though to pose to a couple of the devs at work, though I'll reduce the complexity of it omitting the DataContext base class - it's rather superfluous to the example.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so it's not quite as bad as I though.
You could still break it though:
var context1 = new ModelDataContext(new SqlConnection("server=A;database=B"));
var context2 = new ModelDataContext(new SqlConnection("server=C;database=D"));
CreateNewContext(context1, out var newConn, out var newContext);
Console.WriteLine(newConn.ConnectionString == context1.Connection.ConnectionString);
Console.WriteLine(newContext.Connection.ConnectionString == context1.Connection.ConnectionString);
Console.WriteLine(newContext.Connection.ConnectionString == newConn.ConnectionString);
Console.WriteLine(newContext.Connection == newConn);
Console.WriteLine(newContext.Connection.ConnectionString == context2.Connection.ConnectionString);
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: You could still break it though:
Yeah, but it's never used that way - two different connection strings. But ideally, it shouldn't be possible to use it that way.
Sigh. The irony of this is that it's code I wrote a while back that my DataContext extension methods rely on, and looking at this now, it's some serious code smell. Fortunately, fixing it affects only a couple web servers that are in operation, but I feel embarrassed. But I blame .NET's DataContext.  It does way to much with regards to the state of the Table object. I get what they're trying to do, but there must be a better way that doesn't end up throwing exceptions like "this object was created in a different data context."
|
|
|
|
|
The reason for the results are pretty obvious, when a new instance is created in "CreateNewContext", the parameter "context" is still referring to the original context, not the new one ==> false; When the main program does the compare afterwards, the comparison is done to the static that holds the new context ==> true.
Fixing this is not obvious because you didn't specify what the correct behavior should be.
Do you wish it to be "True" always, or "False" always 
Simply update the context parameter in the method to get True always, but I would personally recommend to re-write this whole thing, it is full of code smells. Perhaps some practice in TDD would also be helpful.
Cheers,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
