TheEffect posted:

Editx2- The copies are being copied over just fine now, but not the empty directories. When I try to add the empty directory to my solution it tells me the folder already exists, but it's not in my solution explorer?

Bognar posted:

We attempted to use it for a recent project, but ultimately we threw it out and rolled our own like we have done for years. I wish MS would get away from trying to provide the "one identity solution to rule them all" and instead just provide sane defaults for password hashing, password requirements, and default functionality for email validation, password resets, and the like.

Mr Shiny Pants posted:

Yeah I get what you mean, they are always trying to be all things to all men. See WPF, you can do almost anything with it but there are no "slick" standard controls a la OSX.

RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:

What are you stuck on?

Knyteguy posted:

No luck unfortunately. Thanks though.

I feel like Windows 8.1 Phone development is still in beta stages or something. Not a whole lot of helpful debugging information.

A Tartan Tory posted:

A Tartan Tory posted:

Welp, I think my brain needs a rest at this point, because I didn't even see that.

Ignore the above stuff, I'll have a look when I'm at least marginally refreshed enough to see basic poo poo again.

A Tartan Tory posted:

Honestly, I'm on a massive downer because of this mostly because even after the better part of a week of dedicated study on it, including multiple examples from everyone here and youtube videos etc. I just straight up don't get it.

I don't get it to the extent where I don't even know where to start doing the basic program you say to try and I really don't understand why I can't either. Everything I make at the moment regarding it seems like a massive jumbled up mess that makes no sense, when it made perfect sense when I did it with the console.

I feel like a complete helpless idiot doing this stuff and I'm struggling to think of how to get over this hurdle because nothing I do actually seems to work and it is incredibly frustrating.

Scuzzywuffit posted:

As it turns out, the reason my program had a window that wasn't closing properly was because I left a constructor call in my code from before I refactored it. So I created two windows, and never closed one

In other words, I am literally the dumbest person on the entire planet.

A Tartan Tory posted:

Thanks for this, after a bit of calming rest and relaxation, I was able to use this to build something basic that actually worked.

Progress!

Ithaqua posted:

At least with LINQ to Objects, the answer is "of course it makes a difference." I can't speak to the SQL generated by LINQ to Entities. It's usually fairly smart about that kind of thing, but it's safer to assume it's dumb.

mortarr posted:

Can't believe I wasted like four hours on this poo poo.

epalm posted:

In both scenarios data is being "sent", whether I GET or POST /page.html?searchTerm=poop

The idea between GET and POST, is that GET should have no server-side side effects (search for something, get back results), whereas POST may have server-side side effects (save this record).

My question is why can't I use GET and send a complex type? For example say I'm running a search with a list search terms.

epalm posted:

JavaScript code:

rows = [
    { Id: 42, Qty: 2 },
    { Id: 44, Qty: 2 },
    { Id: 48, Qty: 4 },
];

$.ajax({
    url: "/path/to/mymethod",
    type: 'POST',
    contentType: "application/json",
    dataType: "html",
    data: JSON.stringify({ model: rows }),
});

C# code:

[HttpPost]
public PartialViewResult MyMethod(int expId, IEnumerable<Row> model)
{
    return PartialView("...");
}

public class Row
{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public int Qty { get; set; }
}

The above, using POST, works like a charm. Technically I "should" be using GET because I'm just requesting some data/visuals, and the call to MyMethod has no side effects.

If I change type: 'POST', to type: 'GET',
and [HttpPost] to [HttpGet]
then MyMethods model argument will inexplicably be null

Leyburn posted:

The only thing that's really causing me to doubt myself here is that the preconditions for all three tests are identical, so any small change in how the application works would require the same changes to be made in three different places instead of one, which immediately sets off alarm bells. But the advantages of doing it as above is that when I run the tests I get a very clear and precise description of all the expected behavior of this method.

Leyburn posted:

Yeah that probably is the best thing to do. I was worried about sacrificing the readability of the tests, but you're right, that's probably not going to be a big problem in this case.

RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:

..
So because of that I'd like to change things in such a way that an include is unnecessary to avoid another query.

mortarr posted:

epalm posted:

It is a primary key. A column can be a PK and not have an Identity Specification, unless SMSS is lying to me.

epalm posted:

I guess I was just looking for some guidance, I'll proceed and report back with my findings.

epalm posted:

Yes, it's a 1-time import. I'm looking into reseeding (which I suppose I'd do in a migration?).

epalm posted:

Fixed

GrumpyDoctor posted:

Ok, I've got a collection databound. The collection has changed. I want the bound view to update. My options are:

• Use an ObservableCollection (hope I didn't need a more specialized collection type internally!)
  
• Create a new collection every time something changes (WPF is about clarity!)
  
• Get ahold of the actual binding expression and dick around with it (WPF is elegant!)
  

Is that right? There's actually no way to force it?

aBagorn posted:

This may not be 100% best practices, but I've never stored an actual user entity for audit tracking. You can just as easily just do this:

...

And you will have a Product updated with the Id of the user that updated it. Put a FK constraint on your product table and then when you are querying do a simple join on the Id field to get back the username.

Bognar posted:

The problem is that the user manager has its own DbContext and you are trying to add an item from that context onto the new one that you're creating.

quote:

Using the Id instead is a good way of doing it, but you need to make sure you still have a foreign key set up. This model should tell EF Code First to make AddedByUserId the foreign key for the AddedByUser relationship.

aBagorn posted:

You also could add a Data Annotation to my solution to force the foreign key relationship.

GrumpyDoctor posted:

Yeah, I know this is the "right" answer, but the way that WPF is missing certain kinds of duct tape is infuriating sometimes.

aBagorn posted:

Random Entity Framework question:

When doing Code First, is there any tangible drawback to not including navigation properties on one end of a relationship?

By not having a virtual Foo in my Bar class, I miss out on being able to call Bar.Foo, but is that it? Keeping the properties one sided allows for easier JSON serialization, and the way the data is setup Bar should not be accessed directly anyway, always through Foo.

Am I making a huge boo boo?

Scaramouche posted:

I think I see your confusion; you're struggling with the idea that each button could potentially be a submit and how to handle them independently? What I'm wondering is, why have a button for each one and the round-trip that implies? You could have checkboxes or radios instead (with the default set to approve/reject depending how often each comes up). Then the form can handle each box/id in a FOR...EACH operation with only one submit.

Scaramouche posted:

I got you. If you're still married to the idea, you could fake it out with link buttons. I have no idea how 'MVC' that is, but instead of doing a full submit just have a link button with href="blah.aspx?userid=xx&approve=1" and then let the code behind process it. Insecure as hell and messy to boot.

Munkeymon posted:

I'm trying to union a couple of lists of objects on some subset of their properties and this is the thing I came up with:

Am I missing something less slow and convoluted? Should I just go ahead and post this in the coding horrors thread?

Munkeymon posted:

No, I tried that first and I can't because it'll only call the loving GetHashCode method for reasons probably having to do with performance but totally obviating my actual intent.

bpower posted:

I expect my db to change a bit during the early stages of dev, or at least I must develop with that possibility in mind. Does that almost rule out EF?

chmods please posted:

No, the values only go as far as the view rendering code, and go away once that finishes. If you never use them in the view, they will never go to the client.

Funking Giblet posted:

I would still use an object for the view that contains only what you want, as you may run into trouble later if you say, need to post values back and are trying to save the user back to the database, or a junior decides to output a property by accident.

Look at AutoMapper which will help you create viewmodels from models using conventions and some configuration, which are just representations of your data which is just used for the view.