improving the perfomance of the process lookup and expanding the deviceBlacklist

[mncrftfrcnm]

The previously used dictionaries search was not effective, and use some O(n^2) scans

Also added more virtual devices to blacklist

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 52.36%. Comparing base (a95bbac) to head (5320298).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1467      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   52.35%   52.36%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         266      266              
  Lines       14560    14562       +2     
  Branches     1600     1598       -2     
==========================================
+ Hits         7623     7626       +3     
  Misses       6634     6634              
+ Partials      303      302       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[dbuechel]

Thanks for your contribution, it is much appreciated! We'll review it in the upcoming days and report back here.

[dbuechel]

While in theory a correct improvement for large data sets (>100), it is in practice resp. especially here with in almost all use cases less than 10 total windows completely negligible. Thus, please revert the code to its original state.

[dbuechel]

Thank you very much for the contribution, it is much appreciated. Please review the comments and provide the additional information resp. changes required, and then we can gladly merge the changes into the master branch.

[dbuechel]

I suppose this improvement has been suggested to you by an AI? And regardless of that, did you actually measure whether your code in practice improves the execution time required for the process monitoring?

If you would have, then you'd realize that for the somewhere around 100 - 300 normally running processes on a Windows machine, this code will often provide no improvement or even a worse performance due to the additionally required allocation of the hash sets vis-à-vis the fail-fast implementation of the LINQ list traversal. Thus again, please revert the code to its original state or then provide clear evidence that the new code is significantly better performing.

[dbuechel]

Have you thoroughly tested all of the new devices in the blacklist? We unfortunately had quite a few issues with false-positive detections when we updated resp. added new devices to the blacklist in the past.

[dbuechel]

Could you please provide feedback on why you closed the pull request? The improvements in the process factory as well as the device blacklist are perfectly valid and can gladly be merged if so requested.