Search Results

Search found 27568 results on 1103 pages for 'git post receive'.

Page 139/1103 | < Previous Page | 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146  | Next Page >

  • Button INPUT that save datas and link at the same time

    - by user1722384
    Im doing a questionare (form) and i need to put a button submit that do two things : 1) Be a button type INPUT ( because I need to use this kind of button on my php code, I've if(@$_POST['Next']) for save the dates of the form in my DB). 2) That this button will have a link for go to the next screen of the questionare. I tried with a href="demo2.html" target="_blank"><input class="buttonNext" name="submit" type="submit" value="NEXT &#8592" ></a This code don't works but with IE browser on the page page appears a circle next to my button that are the link. So the button don't works, only save the data, but don't link to the next page. How can I solve it ?

    Read the article

  • Why do I need the isset() function in php?

    - by Chris
    I am trying to understand the difference between this: if (isset($_POST['Submit'])) { //do something } and if ($_POST['Submit']) { //do something } It seems to me that if the $_POST['Submit'] variable is true, then it is set. Why would I need the isset() function in this case?

    Read the article

  • Wont Let Me Type In My Pass Phrase

    - by Tapha
    Not real information: $ ssh-keygen -t rsa -C "[email protected]" Generating public/private rsa key pair. Enter file in which to save the key (/c/Users/Tekkub/.ssh/id_rsa): ssh.txt I entered a file name here. Not sure if i should have, Enter passphrase (empty for no passphrase): I am stuck here. I type and it doesnt work

    Read the article

  • When open-sourcing a live Rails app, is it dangerous to leave the session key secret in source contr

    - by rspeicher
    I've got a Rails app that's been running live for some time, and I'm planning to open source it in the near future. I'm wondering how dangerous it is to leave the session key store secret in source control while the app is live. If it's dangerous, how do people usually handle this problem? I'd guess that it's easiest to just move the string to a text file that's ignored by the SCM, and read it in later. Just for clarity, I'm talking about this: # Your secret key for verifying cookie session data integrity. # If you change this key, all old sessions will become invalid! # Make sure the secret is at least 30 characters and all random, # no regular words or you'll be exposed to dictionary attacks. ActionController::Base.session = { :key => '_application_session', :secret => '(long, unique string)' } And while we're on the subject, is there anything else in a default Rails app that should be protected when open sourcing a live app?

    Read the article

  • building a hash lookup table during `git filter-branch` or `git-rebase`

    - by intuited
    I've been using the SHA1 hashes of my commits as references in documentation, etc. I've realized that if I need to rewrite those commits, I'll need to create a lookup table to correspond the hashes for the original repo with the hashes for the filtered repo. Since these are effectively UUID's, a simple lookup table would do. I think that it's relatively straightforward to write a script to do this during a filter-branch run; that's not really my question, though if there are some gotchas that make it complicated, I'd certainly like to hear about them. I'm really wondering if there are any tools that provide this functionality, or if there is some sort of convention on where to keep the lookup table/what to call it? I'd prefer not to do things in a completely idiosyncratic way.

    Read the article

  • PHP checking $_POST

    - by sea_1987
    I have some form fields that when a form is submitted creates an array within the $_POST, I needing to check the this array has atleast 4 keys, how can I check that? I have no idea

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Recipes For ASP.NET MVC And AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, the work would be a little crazy. Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Specify Non-constant salt in runtime By default, the salt should be a compile time constant, so it can be used for the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] or [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute. Problem One Web product might be sold to many clients. If a constant salt is evaluated in compile time, after the product is built and deployed to many clients, they all have the same salt. Of course, clients do not like this. Even some clients might want to specify a custom salt in configuration. In these scenarios, salt is required to be a runtime value. Solution In the above [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] and [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute, the salt is passed through constructor. So one solution is to remove this parameter:public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = AntiForgeryToken.Value }; } // Other members. } But here the injected dependency becomes a hard dependency. So the other solution is moving validation code into controller to work around the limitation of attributes:public abstract class AntiForgeryControllerBase : Controller { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; protected AntiForgeryControllerBase(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } protected override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { base.OnAuthorization(filterContext); string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } Then make controller classes inheriting from this AntiForgeryControllerBase class. Now the salt is no long required to be a compile time constant. Submit token via AJAX For browser side, once server side turns on anti-forgery validation for HTTP POST, all AJAX POST requests will fail by default. Problem In AJAX scenarios, the HTTP POST request is not sent by form. Take jQuery as an example:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution Basically, the tokens must be printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() need to be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in both HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token, where $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is useful:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by an iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here, token's container window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Andriond send event from first activity and receive on the second.

    - by jitm
    Hello, I have two activities. The first activity display list of the users with short info. And after select some user I go to the second activity for display full info about this user. For send event I used startActivityForResult(); for receive event in socond activity and added public void onActivityResult(int requestCode, int resultCode, Intent data). After start project I send intend from first activity and I do not receive in the second :(. How I can receive sent event in second activity? Thank you...

    Read the article

  • Caught AttributeError while rendering: 'str' object has no attribute '_meta'

    - by D_D
    def broadcast_display_and_form(request): if request.method == 'POST' : form = PostForm(request.POST) if form.is_valid(): post = form.cleaned_data['post'] obj = form.save(commit=False) obj.person = request.user obj.post = post obj.save() readers = User.objects.all() for x in readers: read_obj = BroadcastReader(person = x) read_obj.post = obj read_obj.save() return HttpResponseRedirect('/broadcast') else : form = PostForm() posts = BroadcastReader.objects.filter(person = request.user) return render_to_response('broadcast/index.html', { 'form' : form , 'posts' : posts ,} ) My template: {% extends "base.html" %} {% load comments %} {% block content %} <form action='.' method='POST'> {{ form.as_p }} <p> <input type="submit" value ="send it" /></input> </p> </form> {% get_comment_count for posts.post as comment_count %} {% render_comment_list for posts.post %} {% for x in posts %} <p> {{ x.post.person }} - {{ x.post.post }} </p> {% endfor %} {% endblock %}

    Read the article

  • can't save form content to database, help plsss!!

    - by dana
    i'm trying to save 100 caracters form user in a 'microblog' minimal application. my code seems to not have any mystakes, but doesn't work. the mistake is in views.py, i can't save the foreign key to user table models.py looks like this: class NewManager(models.Manager): def create_post(self, post, username): new = self.model(post=post, created_by=username) new.save() return new class New(models.Model): post = models.CharField(max_length=120) date = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User, blank=True) objects = NewManager() class NewForm(ModelForm): class Meta: model = New fields = ['post'] # widgets = {'post': Textarea(attrs={'cols': 80, 'rows': 20}) def save_new(request): if request.method == 'POST': created_by = User.objects.get(created_by = user) date = request.POST.get('date', '') post = request.POST.get('post', '') new_obj = New(post=post, date=date, created_by=created_by) new_obj.save() return HttpResponseRedirect('/') else: form = NewForm() return render_to_response('news/new_form.html', {'form': form},context_instance=RequestContext(request)) i didn't mention imports here - they're done right, anyway. my mistake is in views.py, when i try to save it says: local variable 'created_by' referenced before assignment it i put created_py as a parameter, the save needs more parameters... it is really weird help please!!

    Read the article

  • Le virus Flame développé par les Etats-Unis et Israël, selon le Washington Post, pour dérober des données sur le programme nucléaire iranien

    Le virus Flame développé par les Etats-Unis et Israël selon le Washington Post, pour dérober des données sur le programme nucléaire iranien Mise à jour du 20/06/2012, par Hinault Romaric Flame, le virus informatique d'une complexité hors norme qui a beaucoup fait parler de lui en début de ce mois, serait une oeuvre des Etats-Unis en collaboration avec Israël, selon le Washington Post, citant comme source des responsables occidentaux proches du dossier. Considéré comme la plus grosse arme de cyber-espionnage jamais conçue, Flame a été développé avec pour objectif de dérober des données sur le programme nucléaire iranien, afin d...

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to call exception-triggered debugging "post-mortem debugging"?

    - by cool-RR
    I heard the term "post-mortem debugging", and Wikipedia says it's debugging done after the program has crashed. I often debug Python apps using a debugger that stops execution once an important-enough exception has been raised. Then I can use the debug probe to investigate. Does this count as "post-mortem debugging"? Because the program doesn't really crash. EDIT: If the answer is no, then what name would you use for the kind of debugging that I described?

    Read the article

  • Authorize.Net, Silent Posts, and URL Rewriting Don't Mix

    The too long, didn't read synopsis: If you use Authorize.Net and its silent post feature and it stops working, make sure that if your website uses URL rewriting to strip or add a www to the domain name that the URL you specify for the silent post matches the URL rewriting rule because Authorize.Net's silent post feature won't resubmit the post request to URL specified via the redirect response. I have a client that uses Authorize.Net to manage and bill customers. Like many payment gateways, Authorize.Net supports recurring payments. For example, a website may charge members a monthly fee to access their services. With Authorize.Net you can provide the billing amount and schedule and at each interval Authorize.Net will automatically charge the customer's credit card and deposit the funds to your account. You may want to do something whenever Authorize.Net performs a recurring payment. For instance, if the recurring payment charge was a success you would extend the customer's service; if the transaction was denied then you would cancel their service (or whatever). To accomodate this, Authorize.Net offers a silent post feature. Properly configured, Authorize.Net will send an HTTP request that contains details of the recurring payment transaction to a URL that you specify. This URL could be an ASP.NET page on your server that then parses the data from Authorize.Net and updates the specified customer's account accordingly. (Of course, you can always view the history of recurring payments through the reporting interface on Authorize.Net's website; the silent post feature gives you a way to programmatically respond to a recurring payment.) Recently, this client of mine that uses Authorize.Net informed me that several paying customers were telling him that their access to the site had been cut off even though their credit cards had been recently billed. Looking through our logs, I noticed that we had not shown any recurring payment log activity for over a month. I figured one of two things must be going on: either Authorize.Net wasn't sending us the silent post requests anymore or the page that was processing them wasn't doing so correctly. I started by verifying that our Authorize.Net account was properly setup to use the silent post feature and that it was pointing to the correct URL. Authorize.Net's site indicated the silent post was configured and that recurring payment transaction details were being sent to http://example.com/AuthorizeNetProcessingPage.aspx. Next, I wanted to determine what information was getting sent to that URL.The application was setup tolog the parsed results of the Authorize.Net request, such as what customer the recurring payment applied to; however,we were not logging the actual HTTP request coming from Authorize.Net. I contacted Authorize.Net's support to inquire if they logged the HTTP request send via the silent post feature and was told that they did not. I decided to add a bit of code to log the incoming HTTP request, which you can do by using the Request object's SaveAs method. This allowed me to saveevery incoming HTTP request to the silent post page to a text file on the server. Upon the next recurring payment, I was able to see the HTTP request being received by the page: GET /AuthorizeNetProcessingPage.aspx HTTP/1.1Connection: CloseAccept: */*Host: www.example.com That was it. Two things alarmed me: first, the request was obviously a GET and not a POST; second, there was no POST body (obviously), which is where Authorize.Net passes along thedetails of the recurring payment transaction.What stuck out was the Host header, which differed slightly from the silent post URL configured in Authorize.Net. Specifically, the Host header in the above logged request pointed to www.example.com, whereas the Authorize.Net configuration used example.com (no www). About a month ago - the same time these recurring payment transaction detailswere no longer being processed by our ASP.NET page - we had implemented IIS 7's URL rewriting feature to permanently redirect all traffic to example.com to www.example.com. Could that be the problem? I contacted Authorize.Net's support again and asked them if their silent post algorithmwould follow the301HTTP response and repost the recurring payment transaction details. They said, Yes, the silent post would follow redirects. Their reports didn't jive with my observations, so I went ahead and updated our Authorize.Net configuration to point to http://www.example.com/AuthorizeNetProcessingPage.aspx instead of http://example.com/AuthorizeNetProcessingPage.aspx. And, I'm happy to report, recurring payments and correctly being processed again! If you use Authorize.Net and the silent post feature, and you notice that your processing page is not longer working, make sure you are not using any URL rewriting rules that may conflict with the silent post URL configuration. Hope this saves someone the time it took me to get to the bottom of this. Happy Programming!Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Recommended Post-SP1 Visual Studio 2008 Hotfixes

    - by Alex Angas
    Today I had to reinstall. I used to have some hotfixes installed for VS2008 but no longer have them and can't remember why they were necessary. I'm expecting any security-related hotfixes to come through Microsoft Update, but I'm interested in VS bug fixes. Does anyone have a list of hotfixes that they recommend installing for Visual Studio 2008 SP1?

    Read the article

  • Altering the ASP.NET MVC 2 ActionResult on HTTP post

    - by Inge Henriksen
    I want to do some processing on a attribute before returning the view. If I set the appModel.Markup returned in the HttpPost ActionResult method below to "modified" it still says "original" on the form. Why cant I modify my attribute in a HttpGet ActionResult method? [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() { return View(new MyModel { Markup = "original" }); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult Index(MyModel appModel) { return View(new MyModel { Markup = "modified" }); }

    Read the article

  • How to redirect wordpress post links that are using post_id to new url struture of postname

    - by Matthew
    Hey guys, I have a slight problem... we made a change to our url structure the other day and have broken links all over. What I did was change links from: http://blog.mydomain.com/articles/123 To: http://blog.mydomain.com/articles/this-is-a-smaple Is there anyway to direct any links linking to the pages ID number to the postname???? The old url structure is still being published throughout our RSS feed on facebook. So I am trying to catch those people that are or maybe clicking on our links on our facebook posts and redirect them to that posts postname url? Does that make sense? Thanks and help would do

    Read the article

  • Treeview - Link Button Post Back Problem

    - by cagin
    Hi there I' m working on a web application. That has a master page and two pages. These pages under the that master page. I am trying navigate that pages with a TreeView which on the master page. When i click to treeview node i can go to page which i want but there is no postback. But if i use linkbutton postback event happen. I use a break point on master page's pageload event. When i use treeview, v.s doesnt stop on break point line but if i use link button v.s stop on that line. How can i do postback with using treeview? Thanks for your helps

    Read the article

  • Github post commit trigger build in Hudson with security enabled

    - by Jerry Cheung
    Github has no problem with triggering a build in Hudson with security turned off because the build is a public URL. But I'd like to be able to have logins required on Hudson so that people can't arbitrarily build. I tried looking for a HTTP basic auth method so I can include the credentials in the URL itself, but couldn't find anything like that. Has anyone used Hudson with Github and run into this problem?

    Read the article

  • HTML.CheckBox persisting state after POST - Refresh ModelState?

    - by Kirschstein
    I have a form that's made up of many items (think order items on an amazon order). Each row has a checkbox associated with them so the user can select many items and click 'remove'. The form is built up a bit like this; <% for (int i = 0; i < Model.OrderItems.Count; i++) { %> <tr> <td><%= Html.Hidden(String.Format("OrderItems[{0}].Id", i), Model.OrderItems[i].Id)%> <%= Html.CheckBox(String.Format("OrderItems[{0}].Checked", i), Model.OrderItems[i].Checked)%></td> <td><%= Html.TextBox(String.Format("OrderItems[{0}].Name", i), Model.OrderItems[i].Name)%></td> <td><%= Html.TextBox(String.Format("OrderItems[{0}].Cost", i), Model.OrderItems[i].Cost)%></td> <td><%= Html.TextBox(String.Format("OrderItems[{0}].Quantity", i), Model.OrderItems[i].Quantity)%></td> </tr> <% } %> The model binder does its magic just fine and the list is correctly populated. However, after I process the request in the action (e.g. remove the appropriate items) and return a new view containing fewer items, the state of the form is 'semi' persisted. Some check boxes remain checked, even though in the edit model all the bools are set to false. I don't have this problem if I return a RedirectToActionResult, but using that as a solution seems a bit of a hacky work around. I think I need to flush/refresh the ModelState, or something similiar, but I'm unsure of the terms to search for to find out how.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146  | Next Page >