Lock nodes offset

[Stridemann]

Hi,
Thanks again for a program.

I just wanted to ask if it's possible to add LOCK node feature. When you lock node it's offset can't be broken after deleting/inserting bytes before/under it.
Sometimes we don't need to define types in whole structure, just some nodes at start, middle and end of structure.

Also this feature gives us other new awesome feature - we can delete some byte range we don't need (like "hide" in old reclass).

I know, this can be not easy task, just wanted to ask if this is possible.
Thanks you.

[Stridemann]

Also adding options for inserting 1 and 2 bytes will be awesome too.

[KN4CK3R]

ye, locking something would be amazing, like the checkbox when u add a value in cheat engine, u press it, and it forces the value to it every 50 milisecond

That's not what he is talking about.

[KN4CK3R]

@Stridemann Currently that's not possible. There is a rewrite of the internal class representation planned. The new system may have support for that.

[Stridemann]

@KN4CK3R Thanks a lot for your work on this project. That will be really great.
I also working on free program for reversing (searching offsets) https://github.com/Stridemann/StructureSpiderAdvanced

I got one stable bug that throws crash error (can continue working, no data lost). Don't want to create a new issue due to low priority: When you double click on node to edit name (enable text input field) and then right click on any other place or node you will got error.

[KN4CK3R]

I got one stable bug that throws crash error (can continue working, no data lost). Don't want to create a new issue due to low priority: When you double click on node to edit name (enable text input field) and then right click on any other place or node you will got error.

But a crash is a real issue so you should have created another one.

[KN4CK3R]

The original request isn't implemented...

[dot-visual]

Still no fix for this? @KN4CK3R

[Timboy67678]

Nothing to fix, this is a feature request.

…

On Wed, 21 Aug. 2019, 9:00 pm .visual, ***@***.***> wrote: Still no fix for this? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#48?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAHSZZVDGU2243YKHXI5UQ3QFUN3JA5CNFSM4ESX2SAKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4ZJCBQ#issuecomment-523407622>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHSZZSBKHHFSY4WXGRIBPTQFUN3JANCNFSM4ESX2SAA> .

[LoneDev6]

Hello!
I think this feature request is a must have to avoid doing using a top-down approach when reversing a structure.
Let us know what you think @KN4CK3R

[oculus472]

Does anyone know of a good way to handle this? At the moment redefining fields is a nightmare.