Can anyone point me to documentation for CodeAuthzpComputeImageHash() in advapi32.dll?
I can't seem to find documentation anywhere.
The reason you can't find documentation for this function is that this function is undocumented.
Not all winapi functions are documented, unfortunately.
There is a mention of the function at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786941(v=WS.10).aspx, though:
ItemData (REG_BINARY). The actual hash to the file. This value should always be 16 bytes and is generated with a call to CodeAuthzpComputeImageHash().
Also, you can use a trampoline to hook the function, and if you know how to cause it to be executed, you can then try to see its arguments and return type.
Also, try searching at WINE if they have implemented it. Ask in their mailing list. Since they try to implement winapi, they need to implement the undocumented parts, too, there's a good chance they have some understanding about the function.
I'm looking at a piece of very old VB6, and have come across usages such as
Form5!ProgressBar.Max = time_max
and
Form5!ProgressBar.Value = current_time
Perusing the answer to this question here and reading this page here, I deduce that these things mean the same as
Form5.ProgressBar.Max = time_max
Form5.ProgressBar.Value = current_time
but it isn't at all clear that this is the case. Can anyone confirm or deny this, and/or point me at an explanation in words of one syllable?
Yes, Form5!ProgressBar is almost exactly equivalent to Form5.ProgressBar
As far as I can remember there is one difference: the behaviour if the Form5 object does not have a ProgressBar member (i.e. the form does not have a control called ProgressBar). The dot-notation is checked at compile time but the exclamation-mark notation is checked at run time.
Form5.ProgressBar will not compile.
Form5!ProgressBar will compile but will give an error at runtime.
IMHO the dot notation is preferred in VB6, especially when accessing controls. The exclamation mark is only supported for backward-compatibility with very old versions of VB.
The default member of a Form is (indirectly) the Controls collection.
The bang (!) syntax is used for collection access in VB, and in many cases the compiler makes use of it to early bind things that otherwise would be accessed more slowly through late binding.
Far from deprecated, it is often preferable.
However in this case since the default member of Form objects is [_Default] As Object containing a reference to a Controls As Object instance, there is no particular advantage or disadvantage to this syntax over:
Form5("ProgressBar").Value
I agree that in this case however it is better to more directly access the control as a member of the Form as in:
Form5.ProgressBar.Value
Knowing the difference between these is a matter of actually knowing VB. It isn't simply syntactic though, the two "paths" do different things that get to the same result.
Hopefully this answer offers an explanation rather merely invoking voodoo.
(Mathematica version: 8.0.4)
lst = Names["Internal`*"];
Length[lst]
Pick[lst, StringMatchQ[lst, "*Bag*"]]
gives
293
{"Internal`Bag", "Internal`BagLength", "Internal`BagPart", "Internal`StuffBag"}
The Mathematica guidebook for programming By Michael Trott, page 494 says on the Internal context
"But similar to Experimental` context, no guarantee exists that the behavior and syntax of the functions will still be available in later versions of Mathematica"
Also, here is a mention of Bag functions:
Implementing a Quadtree in Mathematica
But since I've seen number of Mathematica experts here suggest Internal`Bag functions and use them themselves, I am assuming it would be sort of safe to use them in actual code? and if so, I have the following question:
Where can I find a more official description of these functions (the API, etc..) like one finds in documenation center? There is nothing now about them now
??Internal`Bag
Internal`Bag
Attributes[Internal`Bag]={Protected}
If I am to start using them, I find it hard to learn about new functions by just looking at some examples and trial and error to see what they do. I wonder if someone here might have a more complete and self contained document on the use of these, describe the API and such more than what is out there already or a link to such place.
The Internal context is exactly what its name says: Meant for internal use by Wolfram developers.
This means, among other things, the following things hold about anything you might find in there:
You most likely won't be able to find any official documentation on it, as it's not meant to be used by the public.
It's not necessarily as robust about invalid arguments. (Crashing the kernel can easily happen on some of them.)
The API may change without notice.
The function may disappear completely without notice.
Now, in practice some of them may be reasonably stable, but I would strongly advise you to steer away from them. Using undocumented APIs can easily leave you in for a lot of pain and a nasty surprise in the future.
CreateFile for example. When I get INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE, what are all the possible values that can be returned by GetLastError? MSDN doesn't say. It mentions some and I can guess others, but how (if at all) can I be sure that my switch statement will never reach default?
Such a list doesn't exist and in fact you can't ever have such a list. In some future version of Windows a function may well start returning an error code that did not exist when you compiled your program.
The standard way to deal with this is handle any error codes that you know about that need special treatment, and let all others fall through to a default handler. Call FormatMessage() to get a descriptive text string for the error.
The title may not really explain what I'm really trying to get at, couldn't really think of a way to describe what I mean.
I was wondering if it is good practice to check the arguments that a function accepts for nulls or empty before using them. I have this function which just wraps some hash creation like so.
Public Shared Function GenerateHash(ByVal FilePath As IO.FileInfo) As String
If (FilePath Is Nothing) Then
Throw New ArgumentNullException("FilePath")
End If
Dim _sha As New Security.Cryptography.MD5CryptoServiceProvider
Dim _Hash = Convert.ToBase64String(_sha.ComputeHash(New IO.FileStream(FilePath.FullName, IO.FileMode.Open, IO.FileAccess.Read)))
Return _Hash
End Function
As you can see I just takes a IO.Fileinfo as an argument, at the start of the function I am checking to make sure that it is not nothing.
I'm wondering is this good practice or should I just let it get to the actual hasher and then throw the exception because it is null.?
Thanks.
In general, I'd suggest it's good practice to validate all of the arguments to public functions/methods before using them, and fail early rather than after executing half of the function. In this case, you're right to throw the exception.
Depending on what your method is doing, failing early could be important. If your method was altering instance data on your class, you don't want it to alter half of the data, then encounter the null and throw an exception, as your object's data might them be in an intermediate and possibly invalid state.
If you're using an OO language then I'd suggest it's essential to validate the arguments to public methods, but less important with private and protected methods. My rationale here is that you don't know what the inputs to a public method will be - any other code could create an instance of your class and call it's public methods, and pass in unexpected/invalid data. Private methods, however, are called from inside the class, and the class should already have validated any data passing around internally.
One of my favourite techniques in C++ was to DEBUG_ASSERT on NULL pointers. This was drilled into me by senior programmers (along with const correctness) and is one of the things I was most strict on during code reviews. We never dereferenced a pointer without first asserting it wasn't null.
A debug assert is only active for debug targets (it gets stripped in release) so you don't have the extra overhead in production to test for thousands of if's. Generally it would either throw an exception or trigger a hardware breakpoint. We even had systems that would throw up a debug console with the file/line info and an option to ignore the assert (once or indefinitely for the session). That was such a great debug and QA tool (we'd get screenshots with the assert on the testers screen and information on whether the program continued if ignored).
I suggest asserting all invariants in your code including unexpected nulls. If performance of the if's becomes a concern find a way to conditionally compile and keep them active in debug targets. Like source control, this is a technique that has saved my ass more often than it has caused me grief (the most important litmus test of any development technique).
Yes, it's good practice to validate all arguments at the beginning of a method and throw appropriate exceptions like ArgumentException, ArgumentNullException, or ArgumentOutOfRangeException.
If the method is private such that only you the programmer could pass invalid arguments, then you may choose to assert each argument is valid (Debug.Assert) instead of throw.
If NULL is an inacceptable input, throw an exception. By yourself, like you did in your sample, so that the message is helpful.
Another method of handling NULL inputs is just to respont with a NULL in turn. Depends on the type of function -- in the example above I would keep the exception.
If its for an externally facing API then I would say you want to check every parameter as the input cannot be trusted.
However, if it is only going to be used internally then the input should be able to be trusted and you can save yourself a bunch of code that's not adding value to the software.
You should check all arguments against the set of assumptions that you make in that function about their values.
As in your example, if a null argument to your function doesn't make any sense and you're assuming that anyone using your function will know this then being passed a null argument shows some sort of error and some sort of action taken (eg. throwing an exception). And if you use asserts (as James Fassett got in and said before me ;-) ) they cost you nothing in a release version. (they cost you almost nothing in a debug version either)
The same thing applies to any other assumption.
And it's going to be easier to trace the error if you generate it than if you leave it to some standard library routine to throw the exception. You will be able to provide much more useful contextual information.
It's outside the bounds of this question, but you do need to expose the assumptions that your function makes - for example, through the comment header to your function.
According to The Pragmatic Programmer by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas, it is the responsibility of the caller to make sure it gives valid input. So, you must now choose whether you consider a null input to be valid. Unless it makes specific sense to consider null to be a valid input (e.g. it is probably a good idea to consider null to be a legal input if you're testing for equality), I would consider it invalid. That way your program, when it hits incorrect input, will fail sooner. If your program is going to encounter an error condition, you want it to happen as soon as possible. In the event your function does inadvertently get passed a null, you should consider it to be a bug, and react accordingly (i.e. instead of throwing an exception, you should consider making use of an assertion that kills the program, until you are releasing the program).
Classic design by contract: If input is right, output will be right. If input is wrong, there is a bug. (if input is right but output is wrong, there is a bug. That's a gimme.)
I'll add a couple of elaborations (in bold) to the excellent design by contract advice offerred by Brian earlier...
The priniples of "design by contract" require that you define what is acceptable for the caller to pass in (the valid domain of input values) and then, for any valid input, what the method/provider will do.
For an internal method, you can define NULLs as outside the domain of valid input parameters. In this case, you would immediately assert that the input parameter value is NOT NULL. The key insight in this contract specification is that any call passing in a NULL value IS A CALLER'S BUG and the error thrown by the assert statement is the proper behavior.
Now, while very well defined and parsimonius, if you're exposing the method to external/public callers, you should ask yourself, is that the contract I/we really want?
Probably not. In a public interface, you'd probably accept the NULL (as technically in the domain of inputs that the method accepts), but then decline to process gracefully w/ a return message. (More work to meet the naturally more complex customer-facing requirement.)
In either case, what you're after is a protocol that handles all of the cases from both the perspective of the caller and the provider, not lots of scattershot tests that can make it difficult to assess the completeness or lack of completeness of the contractual condition coverage.
Most of the time, letting it just throw the exception is pretty reasonable as long as you are sure the exception won't be ignored.
If you can add something to it, however, it doesn't hurt to wrap the exception with one that is more accurate and rethrow it. Decoding "NullPointerException" is going to take a bit longer than "IllegalArgumentException("FilePath MUST be supplied")" (Or whatever).
Lately I've been working on a platform where you have to run an obfuscator before you test. Every stack trace looks like monkeys typing random crap, so I got in the habit of checking my arguments all the time.
I'd love to see a "nullable" or "nonull" modifier on variables and arguments so the compiler can check for you.
If you're writing a public API, do your caller the favor of helping them find their bugs quickly, and check for valid inputs.
If you're writing an API where the caller might untrusted (or the caller of the caller), checked for valid inputs, because it's good security.
If your APIs are only reachable by trusted callers, like "internal" in C#, then don't feel like you have to write all that extra code. It won't be useful to anyone.