Search Results

Search found 124582 results on 4984 pages for 'net code'.

Page 181/4984 | < Previous Page | 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188  | Next Page >

  • ASP.net MVC 2.0 using the same form for adding and editing.

    - by Chevex
    I would like to use the same view for editing a blog post and adding a blog post. However, I'm having an issue with the ID. When adding a blog post, I have no need for an ID value to be posted. When model binding binds the form values to the BlogPost object in the controller, it will auto-generate the ID in entity framework entity. When I am editing a blog post I DO need a hidden form field to store the ID in so that it accompanies the next form post. Here is the view I have right now. <% using (Html.BeginForm("CommitEditBlogPost", "Admin")) { %> <% if (Model != null) { %> <%: Html.HiddenFor(x => x.Id)%> <% } %> Title:<br /> <%: Html.TextBoxFor(x => x.Title, new { Style = "Width: 90%;" })%> <br /> <br /> Summary:<br /> <%: Html.TextAreaFor(x => x.Summary, new { Style = "Width: 90%; Height: 50px;" }) %> <br /> <br /> Body:<br /> <%: Html.TextAreaFor(x => x.Body, new { Style = "Height: 250px; Width: 90%;" })%> <br /> <br /> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> Right now checking if the model is coming in NULL is a great way to know if I'm editing a blog post or adding one, because when I'm adding one it will be null as it hasn't been created yet. The problem comes in when there is an error and the entity is invalid. When the controller renders the form after an invalid model the Model != null evaluates to false, even though we are editing a post and there is clearly a model. If I render the hidden input field for ID when adding a post, I get an error stating that the ID can't be null. Any help is appreciated. EDIT: I went with OJ's answer for this question, however I discovered something that made me feel silly and I wanted to share it just in case anyone was having a similar issue. The page the adds/edits blogs does not even need a hidden field for id, ever. The reason is because when I go to add a blog I do a GET to this relative URL BlogProject/Admin/AddBlogPost This URL does not contain an ID and the action method just renders the page. The page does a POST to the same URL when adding the blog post. The incoming BlogPost entity has a null Id and is generated by EF during save changes. The same thing happens when I edit blog posts. The URL is BlogProject/Admin/EditBlogPost/{Id} This URL contains the id of the blog post and since the page is posting back to the exact same URL the id goes with the POST to the action method that executes the edit. The only problem I encountered with this is that the action methods cannot have identical signatures. [HttpGet] public ViewResult EditBlogPost(int Id) { } [HttpPost] public ViewResult EditBlogPost(int Id) { } The compiler will yell at you if you try to use these two methods above. It is far too convenient that the Id will be posted back when doing a Html.BeginForm() with no arguments for action or controller. So rather than change the name of the POST method I just modified the arguments to include a FormCollection. Like this: [HttpPost] public ViewResult EditBlogPost(int Id, FormCollection formCollection) { // You can then use formCollection as the IValueProvider for UpdateModel() // and TryUpdateModel() if you wish. I mean, you might as well use the // argument since you're taking it. } The formCollection variable is filled via model binding with the same content that Request.Form would be by default. You don't have to use this collection for UpdateModel() or TryUpdateModel() but I did just so I didn't feel like that collection was pointless since it really was just to make the method signature different from its GET counterpart. Thanks for the help guys!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET: disabling authentication for a single aspx page (custom error page)?

    - by Richard Collette
    I am using a custom error page: <customErrors redirectMode="ResponseRedirect" mode="On" defaultRedirect="Error2.aspx"/> I want to disable authentication for the custom error page because the error being raised is related to an authentication module and I don't want to get into an infinite loop and I want to display a clean error page to the user. I have been trying the following configuration to do that. <location path="Error2.aspx"> <system.web> <authentication mode="None"/> <authorization> <allow users="?"/> <allow users="*"/> </authorization> </system.web> </location> I am getting a System.Configuration.ConfigurationErrorsException for the line that sets the authentication mode. It is an error to use a section registered as allowDefinition='MachineToApplication' beyond application level. This error can be caused by a virtual directory not being configured as an application in IIS. I have verified that there are no other web.config files in subdirectories under the application's folder. The applications folder is configured as an application in IIS and the error page is at the application's root. File permissions set for the error page in IIS include anonymous and windows authentication (I have tried just anonymous as well).

    Read the article

  • Are vb.net eventArgs maintained at a "system" level?

    - by GregH
    I have a custom developed control I am using that somebody else wrote. For some reason, when the control was written, they did not write an event handler for the "mouseDown" event so when I mouseDown on the control, no event is fired. What I am basically trying to do is capture which mouse button (left or right) is pressed when the control is clicked on. Is there any sort of system level objects that maintain system state (including which mouse buttons are currently being pressed regardless of the control being clicked upon?)

    Read the article

  • What does ~ in the beginning of an URL in asp.net exactly do ?

    - by MarceloRamires
    I am editing a certain website which before used the port 80 (default) that was not required at the url (because it's default..) But the port had (for technical reasons) to be changed, and now it has to be informed. I can access the main page through ip:port\page like this: 1.2.3.4:81\page.aspx Every link in the website is composed like this: <asp:HyperLink runat="server" Text="random" NavigateUrl="~/fdr/whatever.aspx" /> And whenever I click on a link, the page doesn't load, but the URL is composed on the URL bar of the browser, then I simply add ":80" after the IP in the URL and it works. Due to the existance of querystrings (in other words, for already having access to the URL) I before thought that '~' in the beginning of a URL in a link was saying "keep in the same website, just change to this webpage in this folder", but if the port vanishes, I assume now that the address is requested (probably to IIS) the location of the current website. I want to know then (instead of having to add the port to each link in my website) how do I set up whoever is requested by the ~ in the link to add the port somehow. How do I do that?

    Read the article

  • Are any of these SQL Queries open to SQL injection attacks?

    - by Phil
    I have re-written my code after great help from some friendly stack overflow members (big thanks to Martin B and Kev Chadders especially). I would now like to check if my code is still open to SQL Injections after this work. I believe the code is now working as it should, but any blinding errors that you see i'd love to hear about too. My code is now looking like: -code removed-

    Read the article

  • Code Golf: Spider webs

    - by LiraNuna
    The challenge The shortest code by character count to output a spider web with rings equal to user's input. A spider web is started by reconstructing the center ring: \_|_/ _/ \_ \___/ / | \ Then adding rings equal to the amount entered by the user. A ring is another level of a "spider circles" made from \ / | and _, and wraps the center circle. Input is always guaranteed to be a single positive integer. Test cases Input 1 Output \__|__/ /\_|_/\ _/_/ \_\_ \ \___/ / \/_|_\/ / | \ Input 4 Output \_____|_____/ /\____|____/\ / /\___|___/\ \ / / /\__|__/\ \ \ / / / /\_|_/\ \ \ \ _/_/_/_/_/ \_\_\_\_\_ \ \ \ \ \___/ / / / / \ \ \ \/_|_\/ / / / \ \ \/__|__\/ / / \ \/___|___\/ / \/____|____\/ / | \ Input: 7 Output: \________|________/ /\_______|_______/\ / /\______|______/\ \ / / /\_____|_____/\ \ \ / / / /\____|____/\ \ \ \ / / / / /\___|___/\ \ \ \ \ / / / / / /\__|__/\ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / /\_|_/\ \ \ \ \ \ \ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \___/ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \/_|_\/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \/__|__\/ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \/___|___\/ / / / / \ \ \ \/____|____\/ / / / \ \ \/_____|_____\/ / / \ \/______|______\/ / \/_______|_______\/ / | \ Code count includes input/output (i.e full program).

    Read the article

  • How to get an ASP.NET MVC Ajax response to redirect to new page instead of inserting view into Updat

    - by Jeff Widmer
    I am using the Ajax.BeginForm to create a form the will do an ajax postback to a certain controller action and then if the action is successful, the user should get redirected to another page (if the action fails then a status message gets displayed using the AjaxOptions UpdateTargetId). using (Ajax.BeginForm("Delete", null, new { userId = Model.UserId }, new AjaxOptions { UpdateTargetId = "UserForm", LoadingElementId = "DeletingDiv" }, new { name = "DeleteForm", id = "DeleteForm" })) { [HTML DELETE BUTTON] } If the delete is successful I am returning a Redirect result: [Authorize] public ActionResult Delete(Int32 UserId) { UserRepository.DeleteUser(UserId); return Redirect(Url.Action("Index", "Home")); } But the Home Controller Index view is getting loaded into the UpdateTargetId and therefore I end up with a page within a page. Two things I am thinking about: Either I am architecting this wrong and should handle this type of action differently (not using ajax). Instead of returning a Redirect result, return a view which has javascript in it that does the redirect on the client side. Does anyone have comments on #1? Or if #2 is a good solution, what would the "redirect javascript view" look like?

    Read the article

  • How do I get a linq to sql group by query into the asp.net mvc view?

    - by Brad Wetli
    Sorry for the newbie question, but I have the following query that groups parking spaces by their garage, but I can't figure out how to iterate the data in the view. I guess I should strongly type the view but am a newbie and having lots of problems figuring this out. Any help would be appreciated. Public Function FindAllSpaces() Implements ISpaceRepository.FindAllSpaces Dim query = _ From s In db.spaces _ Order By s.name Ascending _ Group By s.garageid Into spaces = Group _ Order By garageid Ascending Return query End Function The controller is taking the query object as is and putting it into the viewdata.model and as stated the view is not currently strongly typed as I haven't been able to figure out how to do this. I have run the query successfully in linqpad.

    Read the article

  • Which new C#/VB features require .net Framework 4?

    - by Barry
    I remember reading in passing that some of the new language features in C# and VB that are available in VS2010 are backwards compatible with earlier versions of the framework, but that others are not. I'm pretty sure this was in reference to the new property syntax in VB. Which new features are language features vs which ones are framework specific?

    Read the article

  • Zero code coverage with cobertura 1.9.2 but tests are working

    - by eraonel
    I run the code coverage target: <junit fork="yes" dir="${basedir}" failureProperty="test.failed"> <!-- Note the classpath order: instrumented classes are before the original (uninstrumented) classes. This is important. --> <classpath path="${instrumented.dir}" /> <classpath path="${classes.dir}" /> <classpath refid="classpath" /> <!-- The instrumented classes reference classes used by the Cobertura runtime, so Cobertura and its dependencies must be on your classpath. --> <classpath refid="cobertura.classpath" /> <formatter type="xml" /> <!--<test name="${testcase}" todir="${reports.xml.dir}" if="testcase" />--> <batchtest fork="yes" todir="${reports.xml.dir}"> <fileset dir="${classes.dir}"> <include name="**/generated/AllTests.class" /> </fileset> </batchtest> </junit> <junitreport todir="${reports.xml.dir}"> <fileset dir="${reports.xml.dir}"> <include name="TEST-*.xml" /> </fileset> <report format="frames" todir="${reports.html.dir}" /> </junitreport> Then I get the following output ( when using fork="true"): java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585) at net.sourceforge.cobertura.util.FileLocker.lock(FileLocker.java:124) at net.sourceforge.cobertura.coveragedata.ProjectData.saveGlobalProjectData(ProjectData.java:331) at net.sourceforge.cobertura.coveragedata.SaveTimer.run(SaveTimer.java:31) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:595) Caused by: java.io.IOException: No locks available at sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.lock0(Native Method) at sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.lock(FileChannelImpl.java:784) at java.nio.channels.FileChannel.lock(FileChannel.java:865) ... 8 more --------------------------------------- Unable to get lock on /vobs/rnc/rrt/roam2/roamSs/RoamMao_swb/RoamMao_bldu/ant_build/cobertura.ser.lock: null This is known to happen on Linux kernel 2.6.20. Make sure cobertura.jar is in the root classpath of the jvm process running the instrumented code. If the instrumented code is running in a web server, this means cobertura.jar should be in the web server's lib directory. Don't put multiple copies of cobertura.jar in different WEB-INF/lib directories. Only one classloader should load cobertura. It should be the root classloader. I am using Ant 1.7.0 and cobertura 1.9.2. Any ideas why there is no coverage? Test run ok as I see in my target. I have tried to switch java versions ( 1.5.0_06 and 1.6.0_10) but no difference.

    Read the article

  • ASP .NET 4.0 How do I Redirect/Override the default CDN path for ScriptManager when EnableCDN=true

    - by plattnum
    I am using the EnableCdn=true in my ScriptManager so that WebResource.axd and ScriptResource.axd are overridden with static links to JS libraries at the MS CDN service as follows: <asp:ScriptManager ID="ScriptManager1" runat="server" EnableCdn="true" /> How do I override the CDN URLs or service so that I can retrieve the scripts over HTTPS from the MS CDN service rather than HTTP to avoid the browser mixed mode message? or for that matter a different or my own CDN service entirely.

    Read the article

  • where should I put the EF entity and data annotations in asp.net mvc + entity framework project

    - by giddy
    So I have a DataEntity class generated by EntityFramework4 for my sqlexpress08 database. This data context is exposed via a WCF Data Service/Odata to silverlight and win forms clients. Should the data entities + edmx file (generated by EF4) go in a separate class library? The problem here then is I would specify data annotations for a few entities and then some of them would require specific MVC attributes (like CompareAttribute) so the class library would also reference mvc dlls. There also happen to be entity users which will be encapsulated or wrapped into an IIdentity in the website. So its pretty tied to the mvc website. Or Should it maybe go in a Base folder in the mvc project itself? Mostly the website is data driven around the database, like approve users, change global settings etc. The real business happens in the silverlight and win forms apps. Im using mvc3 rc2 with Razor. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does using web services to expose a .NET DAL add security?

    - by Jonno
    Currently my employer deploys a web application over 3 servers. DB - No public route Web Service DAL - No public route Web Server - Public route The reason for this is the theory that if the web server is compromised, they don't arrive at the DB directly, but instead arrive at the DAL box. To my mind, as the DAL box and Web Sever box - both run windows/IIS - if the public box has been compromised, the same exploit would likely work on the DAL box - therefore I do not see this as a real security benefit. I would like to propose we remove the middle machine and allow the web server to connect directly to the database. Is this middle box really a benefit?

    Read the article

  • How do I create a selection list in ASP.NET MVC?

    - by Gary McGill
    I have a database table that records what publications a user is allowed to access. The table is very simple - it simply stores user ID/publication ID pairs: CREATE TABLE UserPublication (UserId INTEGER, PublicationID INTEGER) The presence of a record for a given user & publication means that the user has access; absence of a record implies no access. I want to present my admin users with a simple screen that allows them to configure which publications a user can access. I would like to show one checkbox for each of the possible publications, and check the ones that the user can currently access. The admin user can then check or un-check any number of publications and submit the form. There are various publication types, and I want to group the similarly-typed publications together - so I do need control over how the publications are presented (I don't want to just have a flat list). My view model obviously needs to have a list of all the publications (since I need to display them all regardless of the current selection), and I also need a list of the publications that the user currently has access to. (I'm not sure whether I'd be better off with a single list where each item includes the publication ID and a yes/no field?). But that's as far as I've got. I've really no idea how to go about binding this to some checkboxes. Where do I start?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188  | Next Page >