Improve signature generation algorithm

[frobijn]

Description

Improved the efficiency of the code.

Motivation and Context

Because it takes too long.
The generation of the .pe via MSBuild took about 5 minutes for one of my projects. The code in this PR takes about 2 seconds.

How Has This Been Tested?

Couldn't get the the unit tests to work.

Used a console app (not included) to run the MSBuild task. Used the same arguments as MSBuild to create the *.pe for the project. The resulting *.pe file was (binary) identical to the one produced with the 5-minute version of the build task.

I've copied the new fast build task to the c:\programs... location and am using it now for all NF projects. They all can be run on real hardware.

Types of changes

• Improvement (non-breaking change that improves a feature, code or algorithm)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue with code or algorithm)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality to code)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Config and build (change in the configuration and build system, has no impact on code or features)
• Dependencies (update dependencies and changes associated, has no impact on code or features)
• Unit Tests (add new Unit Test(s) or improved existing one(s), has no impact on code or features)
• Documentation (changes or updates in the documentation, has no impact on code or features)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project (only if there are changes in source code).
• My changes require an update to the documentation (there are changes that require the docs website to be updated).
• I have updated the documentation accordingly (the changes require an update on the docs in this repo).
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have tested everything locally and all new and existing tests passed (only if there are changes in source code).
• I have added new tests to cover my changes.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Review was skipped due to path filters

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• MetadataProcessor.Shared/Tables/nanoSignaturesTable.cs is excluded by none and included by none

CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including **/dist/** will override the default block on the dist directory, by removing the pattern from both the lists.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[frobijn]

Hey @frobijn!

Seems that the build is failing for this PR... 😯 Please check it.

I can't see why the tests fail, but there are warnings about incompatible firmware. I expect that if the code in this PR was incorrect, the test assemblies could not be loaded at all.
@josesimoes I don't know what to do about this.

[josesimoes]

You are rewriting the algorithm of the signatures table.
Not saying it's not correct just that needs more testing as the logic has been inherited from the original MDP and there are no unit tests covering it, so we need to be 200% sure that this is working.

[frobijn]

You are rewriting the algorithm of the signatures table. Not saying it's not correct just that needs more testing as the logic has been inherited from the original MDP and there are no unit tests covering it, so we need to be 200% sure that this is working.

I'm positive that the new code does exactly the same as the old code. The algorithm has not changed, I've implemented it in a different way. I believe in dogfooding: I've replaced the MDP in the NF build system on my computer with the new version, and so far have not experienced any problems with the five projects I've worked on since.

@josesimoes How do you want to proceed? Some options:

• I can give a detailed description how the new code does exactly what the old code does. Here it is: Signature table algorithm recoded.docx
• Apply the new version to a bunch of projects and assert that the resulting .pe is identical. (how?)
• ...

[josesimoes]

LGTM