|
Lol I opened a branch to try out the .NET 6 RC and see if there were any issues with our existing code:quote:error FS0044: This construct is deprecated. WebRequest, HttpWebRequest, ServicePoint, and WebClient are obsolete. Use HttpClient instead. Yeah, except I'm using WebRequest to make a FTP call, so I don't think HttpClient is exactly needs-suiting there, guys. NBD, I could disable the warning, but it's a good excuse to upgrade to FluentFTP which seems to be solid. I wonder if anybody out there is relying on PackWebRequest though...
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Lol I opened a branch to try out the .NET 6 RC and see if there were any issues with our existing code: If you do switch to FluentFTP and you run into anything that looks like this timeout issue please post here or there because it's been driving me crazy!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Classic hot /r/programmerhumor take. Not really, I was curious why we have a factory instead of just "newing" one up like every other piece of functionality inside the framework. It seems convoluted and complicated for something as simple as making a HTTP request. Same thing with HttpListener. No, I don't want to have to download 50MB of ASP just so I can open up a HTTP port inside a small service. When MS see something they want to emulate they also do it to stuff that doesn't actually need changing, but they change it anyway because it doesn't fit with the new paradigm they are aiming for. Oh DI seems popular, let's make everything running through DI frameworks. You want small packages? Let's make everything a package. And now WebRequest is obsolete?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Has anyone worked with Analysis Services? I'm having an issue where a newly created Server object returns stale data even though all old instances of Server have been disposed. There are a bunch of "Refresh" and "Update" methods but I'm not sure which are appropriate in my case. Edit: this doesn't always happen, just often enough to break our tests and make people mad Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Sep 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
We have an ASP.NET Core webapi and sometimes when people add simple functionality they build, run tests and push the code, but they forget to actually start the server up to check for basic runtime errors. How do I make this part of a unit test?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Boz0r posted:We have an ASP.NET Core webapi and sometimes when people add simple functionality they build, run tests and push the code, but they forget to actually start the server up to check for basic runtime errors. How do I make this part of a unit test? That's not a unit test. That's an integration test. You're looking for an integration test that uses a WebApplicationFactory to stand up a runtime instance that you can then test against.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
New Yorp New Yorp posted:That's not a unit test. That's an integration test. Or even a smoke test performed by your deployment process. It's good practice to have a 'health check' endpoint that your deployment system (or, yuck, scripts) can call to ensure the server started in the environment it was deployed to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
I'm looking at options for extending a .net core program I've written so that users can create libraries that will be loaded up and imported. Looking at options I see MEF is available in .net core now but I'm not finding a lot of information regarding security. Where can I get info on restricting what actions are available in the loaded libraries' operations?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:I'm looking at options for extending a .net core program I've written so that users can create libraries that will be loaded up and imported.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
That is precisely what I meant. Hmm...so would the next best idea be some sort of lua-like scripting module? Open to suggestions
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
Wait, by "program" do you mean a server-side application or a locally-run one? If it's the former, I would reach straight for jails, containers, or other battle-tested and well-documented isolation techniques at the OS level, instead of obscure .NET runtime features. If it's the latter, I don't see why policing the user's behaviour should be something your app worries about. By letting them execute arbitrary .NET code you're not letting them do anything they couldn't already do by opening a Powershell console. If they need to be stopped from e.g. establishing connections to unauthorized hosts, that's what sysadmins are for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
It's the latter, with the intent being distribution of plug-ins amongst the community that uses the program. Like what's a way to stop someone from making a plug-in that deletes (or attempts to) all the files in their C: drive? Maybe I just need to have some sort of open source review and master build process instead of letting community members build their own plug-ins?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:It's the latter, with the intent being distribution of plug-ins amongst the community that uses the program. Like what's a way to stop someone from making a plug-in that deletes (or attempts to) all the files in their C: drive? Out of the box Lua isn't sandboxed and if you are running code from unknown sources by default they have the same access as the user executing your software and can cause all sorts of problems. It's not too difficult to lock down by removing things like os.execute() and a bunch of other 'dangerous' calls. If you want to allow file io from Lua you can modify the source to check sanitize the paths - I've done that and it's not too horrible. Another approach would be to launch node and use something like vm2 to sandbox.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
AFAIK this is not exactly a solved problem, but if you're going to help users download and run third party executable code the most important part might be having a solid ToS/EULA. I've seen for example Space engineers take the route of stripping out pretty much everything from the C# language until you're left with basically linq, but hey, that's something...
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
.NET Framework App domains let you explicitly set some security boundaries but they aren’t full proof. If you want to do it with .NET 5, i think you could need to run the “plugin” dlls in a separate process and run it under an account with limited permissions. Basically have a plug-in service that your main app talks to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
Working in .NET 5, is there a way to customize the deployment of a desktop (WPF) app? I want to run the EDITBIN program on the generated DLL and EXE files to set the /swaprun:net flag so it can be run from a network share without locking the files. I'm not sure what to search for regarding customizing the build/publish steps, but I'm open to writing MSBuild XML if that's needed. nielsm fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Oct 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 14:15
|
|
|
I just had a WPF related question. I have a view which contains tabs, and within some of the tabs I have sub-views containing textboxes. Currently, these text boxes don't expand to the full width of their parent: It seems that there are TabControl items which contain nested TabItems. Right now, the TabItem in question looks something like: code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Supersonic posted:I just had a WPF related question. I have a view which contains tabs, and within some of the tabs I have sub-views containing textboxes. Currently, these text boxes don't expand to the full width of their parent: You are telling it Width="600" for both of those text boxes. What does it do if you delete those Width attributes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
After you remove the width you can set the horizontalalignment to “stretch” to have it fill the space. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.windows.frameworkelement.horizontalalignment?view=windowsdesktop-5.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Thanks! These suggestions ended up working for the horizontal, now the only issue I'm having is with the vertical. Is there a way I can have that stretch as well? Right now its set to 300 on both boxes, but if I remove the set height and add VerticalAlignment="stretch" to both they don't expand to fit the parent. Here's what it looks like when I do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
If I’m not mistaken stretch will only work in one direction on a stack layout, the opposite of the stack orientation. You’ll probably have to swap out layouts to a grid or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Yep you want to use a grid there for the vertical stack. Set the rows with the labels to height="auto" and the rows with the text boxes to height="1*".
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
New Yorp New Yorp posted:That's not a unit test. That's an integration test. I'm playing around with this and I've run into a small snag. Right now I'm using the IClassFixture<WebApplicationFactory<Startup>> to inject the factory into the constructor and build my client like normal. My problem now is that in my unit tests I inject my mocks with AutoMoqData, and I'd like to be able to do this here too. Is there any way to have something like this: code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 10:32
|
|
|
Is anyone here an expert on MSIX? who has created "related sets"? I am having no luck at all getting this poo poo to work. "A related set cannot be updated because the updated set is invalid. All packages in the related set must be updated at the same time. (0x80003d17)" I believe I must be missing something in the main package, but I have no idea what.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
I'm getting an unexpected exception that I'm having trouble unraveling. It's a Blazor Server app, and I'm using ProtectedSessionStorage to store authentication tokens. Because access to this storage requires JavaScript interop, the calls can only be made in the OnAfterRenderAsync method. Which is what I'm doing. And it worked, for a long time - and is working in several other apps. As best as I can recall, the only change I made between working / not working was replacing the favicon.ico file. Here is the exception text and stack trace: code:Edit: I figured out what was causing the error, but I have no idea why. I use an AuthorizationContext class to track authentication state. Because the context requires an async call to initialize itself, I use a factory method to create the context. The factory gets the context via dependency injection (see code below): C# code: LongSack fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Oct 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
We have made an app that sends email notifications to users under certain criteria. E.g.: Equipment needs to be returned, certificates expiring. These are set up so if an action is required, and a user doesn't do $thing after $timeperiod, their manager gets CC'd, and eventually we open up a ticket (Service-Now). Now Management is saying that people "don't read emails" (true), and want some other way to get a more immediate(?) or maybe consistent response. Has any one had success doing something like this before? Fake edit: The processes that don't escalate to creating a ticket at the end are the ones we are getting complaints about. I'll have to see if that is an option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
The NPC posted:We have made an app that sends email notifications to users under certain criteria. E.g.: Equipment needs to be returned, certificates expiring. These are set up so if an action is required, and a user doesn't do $thing after $timeperiod, their manager gets CC'd, and eventually we open up a ticket (Service-Now). This is a process/people problem, not a programming problem. Trying to solve it with programming will just shift the problem to some other part of the process or some other set of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
The NPC posted:We have made an app that sends email notifications to users under certain criteria. E.g.: Equipment needs to be returned, certificates expiring. These are set up so if an action is required, and a user doesn't do $thing after $timeperiod, their manager gets CC'd, and eventually we open up a ticket (Service-Now). I think you answered your question at the end there. The next step after a ticket is tangible consequences for not taking the action or not following up on the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
The NPC posted:Now Management is saying that people "don't read emails" (true), and want some other way to get a more immediate(?) or maybe consistent response. Has any one had success doing something like this before? I've written a similar system, and the key is in the targeted escalation. Instead of CCing the manager, they get a direct (TO) email after X days informing them of their lazy subordinate. After X more days, it gets escalated again to the next level up. Messages are specific about who/when the ball was dropped. The 3 levels, original + 2 increasing managers, is sufficient for my case. As New Yorp New Yorp said, after a certain point, there's not much you can do. A computer can't hold a gun to someone's head, and if 2 levels of management don't see that it's done, I would argue what you're warning about isn't that important (i.e. nobody gives a poo poo.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
There are some cheap iot lte chips now if you need to add wireless electric shock collars to your web app.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
mystes posted:There are some cheap iot lte chips now if you need to add wireless electric shock collars to your web app. Yeah but with WFH we will have to ship them the collar and then write docs on how to wear it. Which they won't read  New Yorp New Yorp posted:This is a process/people problem, not a programming problem. Trying to solve it with programming will just shift the problem to some other part of the process or some other set of people. Thanks for reminding me not everything can be fixed with code.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
New Yorp New Yorp posted:This is a process/people problem, not a programming problem. Trying to solve it with programming will just shift the problem to some other part of the process or some other set of people. Yes! Yes! B-Nasty posted:I've written a similar system, and the key is in the targeted escalation. Yes! Yes! Responsibility is not something you can enforce in code, in the end it belongs to people needing to be responsible for their tasks. Assign stuff and follow up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
Also look at whether some of those things that need doing can be automated, you mention renewing certificates as one. Since you do have a service management system, consider if those things that need doing shouldn't go into it, as tasks with a deadline, as soon as it becomes known it needs doing. That should make a clearer audit trail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
It's also possible that your organization is used to email being for low-priority business, while urgent requests go through a different channel (Slack? SMS? Magical owl?) In that case, you have two options: (1) Make your important emails easily distinguishable from the routine crap, most likely via a different sender address, and instruct the users to set urgent notifications when they receive emais from that sender (2) Interface with whatever your organization is actually using for rapid communication Before you go with (2), make sure that the communication format is actually the problem, and not just an excuse to dismiss "oh ffs, The NPC is pestering me again about returning the company Bugatti, gently caress him i'll just pretend I didn't see the email if anyone asks".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 09:02
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Since you do have a service management system, consider if those things that need doing shouldn't go into it, as tasks with a deadline, as soon as it becomes known it needs doing. That should make a clearer audit trail. Echoing this. Email is a cesspool, don't ever rely on it as a notification system for actionable tasks. If you have a system for tickets (and you mentioned you have ServiceNow), just skip the informalities and create the ticket there directly, because that's where people already look for work needing to be done. Even if it's a horrible dumpster fire of a ticket system -- as they tend to be -- you want your generated tasks to be where everyone else's are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
There's also the option of closing the tickets after a period of inactivity, and blaming the ineffective user on it. Public shaming is a powerful tool.quote:Ticket #555123 has been closed by some.butthole after 6 days of inactivity. The ticket was assigned to some.butthole on 2021-10-19 and has not been updated in 7 days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
I'm using AutoMapper to map a boatload of classes. All these classes inherit from a common abstract class, with only an id and text description, without adding anything more. I'd like to only create maps for the base classes, but I can't seem to get it to work without also creating maps for all the subclasses, so my mapping profile is getting really big. I've looked a bit around but I can't find a good solution to this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
Boz0r posted:I'm using AutoMapper to map a boatload of classes. All these classes inherit from a common abstract class, with only an id and text description, without adding anything more. Well here's your mapping code then: code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 10:09
|
|
|
I think you can do a type safe version if you add a parameterless constructor type constraint and make the derived classes mutable. Probably worse than immutable/dodgy construction though
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
pointsofdata posted:I think you can do a type safe version if you add a parameterless constructor type constraint and make the derived classes mutable. Probably worse than immutable/dodgy construction though Yeah I know, descriptions are one thing but having mutable Id fields gives the me the creeps. I found a way to make it acceptable though, by keeping the function as a method in the base class it can just set the init properties as part of the object expression. You still need the parameterless constructor but the properties are immutable so it's just useless rather than dangerous. code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:09
|
|