trustworthy | Keep secrets with 2 of N required passwords to unlock | Identity Management library

You could use something like the following to do so with the untokenized data.

You are likely computing 0/0 for some frequency component, meaning Inv will have a NaN value, meaning that deblur is all NaN. Make sure to avoid the division by zero:

I tried your code with your data and it is -- as expected -- iterating over all 27 items. But because some condition isn't met, you are setting innError = true for the 22nd record and never setting it back to false.

So all items after that will be treated like they have an error too (which probably makes you believe they are not iterated). Just try adding a console.log(j) as first statement in your inner loop. And you will see, it will printout all values from 0 to 26 ...

We went through multiple iterations of failed reviews. We finally passed review after fully implementing option 2 and 3:

You can try either reducing the part to be counted like in my comment

Solution was found. Code is writen by Barand and the script does this:

• Parses a XML data with multiple Entity entries
• Uses 1st Entry as "title" column (Entry ID 1)
• Outputs each other Entry in columns in a "comparable-style" horizontal html table
• Has a "filter" mode where certain Entries can be "compared"
• Modifies values of 1st Entry only (to remove default "1" values)

The script does not reorganize Entries (rows) in the HTML table (they are in the same order as XML data).

There are two solutions to this. The first was through my own experimentation. The second is a line of thought spawned thanks Solar Mike reminding me of an all too useful feature that I forgot about due to lack of use (generally do not have a need for it): Very Hidden Sheets. The avenue he seemed to be suggesting may not work exactly as he intended as, ideally, this Revit macro and Excel file combo should be usable by anyone in my company, but there is a method to make it work for anyone. Below are the two methods to resolve my issue, and hopefully anyone else in a similar bind that is, for some reason, unable to use Protect Sheet to do this job.

By setting Allow: Custom and Formula: "", I can trigger the Error Alert feature with Style set to "Stop" that will disallow any alterations.

Even better, if I want to disallow the deletion of cell data, unchecking the "Ignore blank" box causes an Error Alert upon hitting the Delete key on the cell as well.

Using this in conjunction with hiding the column obfuscates the process for editing these cells through sheer volume of steps to enable editing, discouraging users from bothering to mess with cell contents.

• Can utilize Input Message to warn users of the danger of altering cell contents
• Can use Error Alert to outright block data entry or deletion of cell contents
• Requires additional steps before people can alter values, using effort as a deterrent

• Does not protect against the following (read further for detailed descriptions):
  • Deletion of rows (offset by using this macro on the workbook in the Visual Basic editor)
  • Copy and paste another cell(s) over read-only cell(s) (working on a macro to eliminate this issue)
  • Alteration of cells through code or macro
• Requires macros to mitigate some of the above limitations, which can be disabled and put data at risk of outlined issues.
• Requires additional column (which can and likely should be hidden) in your data, which becomes obvious to those who look at column letters.
• Does not prevent people from turning off data validation, should someone deem the effort worth it

Deletion of row:

This does not matter as much for me with this solution, as I am reading data from excel row by row, using the ElementId cell to find the Revit element. If an Excel row was deleted, the associated Revit element simply misses get data with that import, and is then re-added into the Excel file from the schdule upon the next export run, as long as the element still exists in Revit. But if row data needs to be maintained to avoid data corruption in your situation, you can use the linked macro to disable it.

Alteration by code:

At least external code; I have not tested this against a VBA macro from within Excel, but I assume the same to be true. I reason this is due to the fact that Data Validation is activated by a user interacting with the cell on an interface level, but when writing to the cell using the Microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel library in C# you are bypassing the interface and interacting directly with the cell data, thus not triggering Data Validation. I am not concerned about security or validation issues arising from this as few in our AEC firm know how to code, and the ones that do have no reason to interact with these files and/or lack the permission to access the folder (seperation of disciplines). While imperfect for most cases, this is the best solution I can come up with for our current needs.

This method utilizes two features of Excel:

• Very hidden sheet visibility setting
• Macros

Specifically, the macro I am referring to is the link from Solution 1's Con section, Prevent Row/Column Removal.

The solution is to have your script write to two different sheets, one for your overall data, and the second for your unique identifiers. The writing of these should be coded in such a way that you would write to a line in each sheet before moving to the next one to ensure the identifier and data are placed on the same row and to reduce errors when editing the code in the future.

When saving the newly generated and format- and filter-less Excel file, set the identifier sheet's visibility to xlSheetVeryHidden, or 2. This setting should be exposed through the Interop.Excel interface as a worksheet property. This way, only advanced users who can use macros can unhide the sheet, and that's if they even know to look for it.

• Ensures unique identifier is accessible only to those explicitly told of its existence, and even then only to those with the ability or given the tools to access it
• By utilizing the Row Deletion Prevention macro, identifier will always be paired with correct data, as long as code writes the data to Excel correctly
• Is more secure than Data Validation by way of eliminating copy/paste as a risk

• Requires file to be saved as .xlsm, or Macro Enabled Workbook, which depending on your company's security settings may send a red flag to those who are unfamiliar with why the file is set this way
• If macros are disabled via security settings, validity of data cannot be guaranteed as the row deletion prevention would be disabled

While I prefer Solution 2 and the usability it would provide, I can't in good conscience use it. Our firm's OOTB Excel install disables macros by default, and several people consider them non-essential to their tasks in the file and just ignore the warning at the top of the file all together. The risk of data becoming compromised purely because someone doesn't want to enable macros is too great.

I'd also like to add: If you are not in exactly the same situation as me, I do NOT readily recommend either solution. Protect Sheet is the strongest way to protect cell data, and does not disallow the use of existing Sort/Filter features. I am only using these as my go-to solutions due to the experience and/or knowledge level of those in the office who could potentially use my macro (and hopefully future addin), and recognize that neither route is a perfect defense.

If anyone has any other suggestions, I'd appreciate hearing them and I'll definitely update this answer if/when I have a better working version of either solution going.

Yes, you need to use HTTPS.

Certain features (which includes SharedArrayBuffer, due to the revelations of Spectre-style attacks) are security-sensitive and require a greater degree of isolation. COOP/COEP allows the browser to isolate your page from other sites to a greater degree, which allows this feature to be safer to use.

Some features, including COOP, have significant effects on how the browser treats content from your origin. The browser can't be sure that this assertion hasn't been tampered with unless it is delivered from a potentially trustworthy origin (if that's not localhost, this means over HTTPS).

The relevant hint is the error message Invalid column name '343'. In