Search Results

Search found 37403 results on 1497 pages for 'mvc view testing'.

Page 47/1497 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • grid controls for ASP.NET MVC ?

    - by MikeJ
    If you are using ASP.NET MVC how are you doing grid display? Rolled your own? Got a library from somewhere? These are some of the known grid display solutions I have found for ASP.NET MVC ASP.NET MVC Flexgrid - Has nice column layout method Code based ASP.NET MVC GridView - simple, small, clean MVC Contrib - grid from codePlex jQueryGrid - jQuery grid Datatables - jQuery plugin - believed to be section 508 compliant extJS - cross browser RIA framework - has grid support Ingrid - jQuery data grid Terlerik MVC - jQuery based grid that is GPL v2 licensed, commercial version also available If you know of anything else that you are using or know to be good, please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Reject (Hard 404) ASP.NET MVC-style URLs

    - by James D
    Hi, ASP.NET MVC web app that exposes "friendly" URLs: http://somesite.com/friendlyurl ...which are rewritten (not redirected) to ASP.NET MVC-style URLs under the hood: http://somesite.com/Controller/Action The user never actually sees any ASP.NET MVC style URLS. If he requests one, we hard 404 it. ASP.NET MVC is (in this app) an implementation detail, not a fundamental interface. My question: how do you examine an arbitrary incoming URL and determine whether or not that URL matches a defined ASP.NET MVC path? For extra credit: how do you do it from inside an ASP.NET-style IHttpModule, where you're getting invoked upstream from the ASP.NET MVC runtime? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Javascript code in ASP.NET MVC Partial Views (ASCX) or not?

    - by Alex
    Is there a "best practice" for placing Javascript code when you have many partial views and JS code that's specific to them? I feel like I'm creating a maintenance nightmare by having many partial views and then a bunch of independent Javascript files for them which need to be synced up when there is a partial view change. It appears, for maintenance purposes, better to me to put the JS code with the partial view. But then I'm violating generally accepted practices that all JS code should be at the bottom of the page and not mixed in, and also I'd end up with multiple references to the same JS file (as I'd include a reference in each ASCX for intellisense purposes). Does anyone have a better idea? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net MVC Web App not running

    - by Aidan Host
    Hi, I developed an ASP.Net MVC v1 web application and it ran fine on our server. The client wanted to move to another server, and the site does not run on the new host's server. The new server specs: Windows 2008 ASP.Net Framework v4 ASP.Net MVC 2 (afaik its included with .Net v4) IIS 7.5 (afaik) Error Message: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Web.Mvc, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. My understanding is that it should be backwards compatible. Is the app really trying to run in ASP.Net MVC v1 when v2 is available? I have already tried deploying the MVC .dlls to the Bin folder, but it did not work. I also tried changing all the system.Web.Mvc Version values (in the web.config for the web app) from 1.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.0, which also did not work. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How do I pass a javascript parameter to an asp.net MVCmodel from within a View?

    - by Josh
    Hi everyone! I am having an issue trying to access a list property on a model from within a javascript. My basic situation is this: I have an ArticleController and an ArticleViewModel. An Article has a number of properties, one of which is Text, which is just a string that contains the contents of the article. The ArticleViewModel contains a Pages property, which is just a List of Strings. When the ArticleViewModel constructor is called, I populate the Pages list by dividing up the article text based on some delimeters. I have a View which inherits the ArticleViewModel type. What I want to do is only display one page at a time, and then when the user clicks a page number (from a list at the bottom of the article), I want to use javascript to load that page into the #dynamicContent div. The problem: I can't seem to pass a parameter to the Model.Pages property from within javascript... Is this possible? I get an error stating, "Expression Expected" when I try what I have below. I don't want to have to worry about AJAX calls or anything like that since I already have the entire article... I just need a way to access each individual page from within the javascript function. Alternatively, if there is a better solution for "paginating" an article so that I can load each articlePage without having to refresh the entire html page, I would certainly be open to that as well. Any help would be much appreciated!! Thanks for your time! ArticleView Code: Script at the top of the view: function loadPage(pageNumber) { try { alert(pageNumber); $('#dynamicContent').html('<%=Model.Pages(' + pageNumber + ') %>'); } catch (e) { alert('in here'); alert(e.description); } } HTML for view: [...] <div id="articleBody"> <div id="dynamicContent"> <%=Model.Pages(0)%> </div> </div> [...] Page Links at bottom of page: [...] <div> <ul style="display:block"> <li style="display:inline"> <a href="#articleTitle" onclick="loadPage(0)"> 1 </a> </li> <li style="display:inline"> <a href="#articleTitle" onclick="loadPage(1)"> 2 </a> </li> </ul> </div>

    Read the article

  • Load Testing Linux Virtual Server

    - by Anubhav Agarwal
    I have configured a Linux virtual network with following configuration 172.17.6.112- VIP 172.17.6.111- Linux Director | |----------172.17.6.113 --- Real Server 1 |----------172.17.6.114 --- Real Server 2 I am using direct routing technique. I am unable to test my LVS network. Are there some good scripts/softwares available for load testing. I am running apache2.0 service on them. I came across with testlvs on the internet but am unable to understand its documentation. Are there more simpler ones I want to test the response time of server using various scheduling algorithms .

    Read the article

  • Developing and implementing a testing plan for a software app deployed on a web server

    - by Abhzoo
    A company in the USA is building a new Web App that will be offered SaaS to customers and the development is being done by a software development team located in a different country(India). They are about to take delivery of a first demo to provide live feedback to the team in India. The overseas team requires a cloud server (Windows + SQL Standard, 8GB Ram, 8 vCPUs, 40GB SSD system disk, 80GB SSD data disk, 1600Mb/s network bandwidth) to serve as a tester server. When the tester is setup the team will install the app on the test server to get live feedback. Q:Explain in detail how you will develop and implement a testing plan for the software App. Be sure to explain the specifics. PLEASE HELP, NEED ANSWER ASAP

    Read the article

  • Ten - oh, wait, eleven - Eleven things you should know about the ASP.NET Fall 2012 Update

    - by Jon Galloway
    Today, just a little over two months after the big ASP.NET 4.5 / ASP.NET MVC 4 / ASP.NET Web API / Visual Studio 2012 / Web Matrix 2 release, the first preview of the ASP.NET Fall 2012 Update is out. Here's what you need to know: There are no new framework bits in this release - there's no change or update to ASP.NET Core, ASP.NET MVC or Web Forms features. This means that you can start using it without any updates to your server, upgrade concerns, etc. This update is really an update to the project templates and Visual Studio tooling, conceptually similar to the ASP.NET MVC 3 Tools Update. It's a relatively lightweight install. It's a 41MB download. I've installed it many times and usually takes 5-7 minutes; it's never required a reboot. It adds some new project templates to ASP.NET MVC: Facebook Application and Single Page Application templates. It adds a lot of cool enhancements to ASP.NET Web API. It adds some tooling that makes it easy to take advantage of features like SignalR, Friendly URLs, and Windows Azure Authentication. Most of the new features are installed via NuGet packages. Since ASP.NET is open source, nightly NuGet packages are available, and the roadmap is published, most of this has really been publicly available for a while. The official name of this drop is the ASP.NET Fall 2012 Update BUILD Prerelease. Please do not attempt to say that ten times fast. While the EULA doesn't prohibit it, it WILL legally change your first name to Scott. As with all new releases, you can find out everything you need to know about the Fall Update at http://asp.net/vnext (especially the release notes!) I'm going to be showing all of this off, assisted by special guest code monkey Scott Hanselman, this Friday at BUILD: Bleeding edge ASP.NET: See what is next for MVC, Web API, SignalR and more… (and I've heard it will be livestreamed). Let's look at some of those things in more detail. No new bits ASP.NET 4.5, MVC 4 and Web API have a lot of great core features. I see the goal of this update release as making it easier to put those features to use to solve some useful scenarios by taking advantage of NuGet packages and template code. If you create a new ASP.NET MVC application using one of the new templates, you'll see that it's using the ASP.NET MVC 4 RTM NuGet package (4.0.20710.0): This means you can install and use the Fall Update without any impact on your existing projects and no worries about upgrading or compatibility. New Facebook Application Template ASP.NET MVC 4 (and ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms) included the ability to authenticate your users via OAuth and OpenID, so you could let users log in to your site using a Facebook account. One of the new changes in the Fall Update is a new template that makes it really easy to create full Facebook applications. You could create Facebook application in ASP.NET already, you'd just need to go through a few steps: Search around to find a good Facebook NuGet package, like the Facebook C# SDK (written by my friend Nathan Totten and some other Facebook SDK brainiacs). Read the Facebook developer documentation to figure out how to authenticate and integrate with them. Write some code, debug it and repeat until you got something working. Get started with the application you'd originally wanted to write. What this template does for you: eliminate steps 1-3. Erik Porter, Nathan and some other experts built out the Facebook Application template so it automatically pulls in and configures the Facebook NuGet package and makes it really easy to take advantage of it in an ASP.NET MVC application. One great example is the the way you access a Facebook user's information. Take a look at the following code in a File / New / MVC / Facebook Application site. First, the Home Controller Index action: [FacebookAuthorize(Permissions = "email")] public ActionResult Index(MyAppUser user, FacebookObjectList<MyAppUserFriend> userFriends) { ViewBag.Message = "Modify this template to jump-start your Facebook application using ASP.NET MVC."; ViewBag.User = user; ViewBag.Friends = userFriends.Take(5); return View(); } First, notice that there's a FacebookAuthorize attribute which requires the user is authenticated via Facebook and requires permissions to access their e-mail address. It binds to two things: a custom MyAppUser object and a list of friends. Let's look at the MyAppUser code: using Microsoft.AspNet.Mvc.Facebook.Attributes; using Microsoft.AspNet.Mvc.Facebook.Models; // Add any fields you want to be saved for each user and specify the field name in the JSON coming back from Facebook // https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/user/ namespace MvcApplication3.Models { public class MyAppUser : FacebookUser { public string Name { get; set; } [FacebookField(FieldName = "picture", JsonField = "picture.data.url")] public string PictureUrl { get; set; } public string Email { get; set; } } } You can add in other custom fields if you want, but you can also just bind to a FacebookUser and it will automatically pull in the available fields. You can even just bind directly to a FacebookUser and check for what's available in debug mode, which makes it really easy to explore. For more information and some walkthroughs on creating Facebook applications, see: Deploying your first Facebook App on Azure using ASP.NET MVC Facebook Template (Yao Huang Lin) Facebook Application Template Tutorial (Erik Porter) Single Page Application template Early releases of ASP.NET MVC 4 included a Single Page Application template, but it was removed for the official release. There was a lot of interest in it, but it was kind of complex, as it handled features for things like data management. The new Single Page Application template that ships with the Fall Update is more lightweight. It uses Knockout.js on the client and ASP.NET Web API on the server, and it includes a sample application that shows how they all work together. I think the real benefit of this application is that it shows a good pattern for using ASP.NET Web API and Knockout.js. For instance, it's easy to end up with a mess of JavaScript when you're building out a client-side application. This template uses three separate JavaScript files (delivered via a Bundle, of course): todoList.js - this is where the main client-side logic lives todoList.dataAccess.js - this defines how the client-side application interacts with the back-end services todoList.bindings.js - this is where you set up events and overrides for the Knockout bindings - for instance, hooking up jQuery validation and defining some client-side events This is a fun one to play with, because you can just create a new Single Page Application and hit F5. Quick, easy install (with one gotcha) One of the cool engineering changes for this release is a big update to the installer to make it more lightweight and efficient. I've been running nightly builds of this for a few weeks to prep for my BUILD demos, and the install has been really quick and easy to use. The install takes about 5 minutes, has never required a reboot for me, and the uninstall is just as simple. There's one gotcha, though. In this preview release, you may hit an issue that will require you to uninstall and re-install the NuGet VSIX package. The problem comes up when you create a new MVC application and see this dialog: The solution, as explained in the release notes, is to uninstall and re-install the NuGet VSIX package: Start Visual Studio 2012 as an Administrator Go to Tools->Extensions and Updates and uninstall NuGet. Close Visual Studio Navigate to the ASP.NET Fall 2012 Update installation folder: For Visual Studio 2012: Program Files\Microsoft ASP.NET\ASP.NET Web Stack\Visual Studio 2012 For Visual Studio 2012 Express for Web: Program Files\Microsoft ASP.NET\ASP.NET Web Stack\Visual Studio Express 2012 for Web Double click on the NuGet.Tools.vsix to reinstall NuGet This took me under a minute to do, and I was up and running. ASP.NET Web API Update Extravaganza! Uh, the Web API team is out of hand. They added a ton of new stuff: OData support, Tracing, and API Help Page generation. OData support Some people like OData. Some people start twitching when you mention it. If you're in the first group, this is for you. You can add a [Queryable] attribute to an API that returns an IQueryable<Whatever> and you get OData query support from your clients. Then, without any extra changes to your client or server code, your clients can send filters like this: /Suppliers?$filter=Name eq ‘Microsoft’ For more information about OData support in ASP.NET Web API, see Alex James' mega-post about it: OData support in ASP.NET Web API ASP.NET Web API Tracing Tracing makes it really easy to leverage the .NET Tracing system from within your ASP.NET Web API's. If you look at the \App_Start\WebApiConfig.cs file in new ASP.NET Web API project, you'll see a call to TraceConfig.Register(config). That calls into some code in the new \App_Start\TraceConfig.cs file: public static void Register(HttpConfiguration configuration) { if (configuration == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("configuration"); } SystemDiagnosticsTraceWriter traceWriter = new SystemDiagnosticsTraceWriter() { MinimumLevel = TraceLevel.Info, IsVerbose = false }; configuration.Services.Replace(typeof(ITraceWriter), traceWriter); } As you can see, this is using the standard trace system, so you can extend it to any other trace listeners you'd like. To see how it works with the built in diagnostics trace writer, just run the application call some API's, and look at the Visual Studio Output window: iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Request, Method=GET, Url=http://localhost:11147/api/Values, Message='http://localhost:11147/api/Values' iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Message='Values', Operation=DefaultHttpControllerSelector.SelectController iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Message='WebAPI.Controllers.ValuesController', Operation=DefaultHttpControllerActivator.Create iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Message='WebAPI.Controllers.ValuesController', Operation=HttpControllerDescriptor.CreateController iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Message='Selected action 'Get()'', Operation=ApiControllerActionSelector.SelectAction iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Operation=HttpActionBinding.ExecuteBindingAsync iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Operation=QueryableAttribute.ActionExecuting iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Message='Action returned 'System.String[]'', Operation=ReflectedHttpActionDescriptor.ExecuteAsync iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Message='Will use same 'JsonMediaTypeFormatter' formatter', Operation=JsonMediaTypeFormatter.GetPerRequestFormatterInstance iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Message='Selected formatter='JsonMediaTypeFormatter', content-type='application/json; charset=utf-8'', Operation=DefaultContentNegotiator.Negotiate iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Operation=ApiControllerActionInvoker.InvokeActionAsync, Status=200 (OK) iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Operation=QueryableAttribute.ActionExecuted, Status=200 (OK) iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Operation=ValuesController.ExecuteAsync, Status=200 (OK) iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Response, Status=200 (OK), Method=GET, Url=http://localhost:11147/api/Values, Message='Content-type='application/json; charset=utf-8', content-length=unknown' iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Operation=JsonMediaTypeFormatter.WriteToStreamAsync iisexpress.exe Information: 0 : Operation=ValuesController.Dispose API Help Page When you create a new ASP.NET Web API project, you'll see an API link in the header: Clicking the API link shows generated help documentation for your ASP.NET Web API controllers: And clicking on any of those APIs shows specific information: What's great is that this information is dynamically generated, so if you add your own new APIs it will automatically show useful and up to date help. This system is also completely extensible, so you can generate documentation in other formats or customize the HTML help as much as you'd like. The Help generation code is all included in an ASP.NET MVC Area: SignalR SignalR is a really slick open source project that was started by some ASP.NET team members in their spare time to add real-time communications capabilities to ASP.NET - and .NET applications in general. It allows you to handle long running communications channels between your server and multiple connected clients using the best communications channel they can both support - websockets if available, falling back all the way to old technologies like long polling if necessary for old browsers. SignalR remains an open source project, but now it's being included in ASP.NET (also open source, hooray!). That means there's real, official ASP.NET engineering work being put into SignalR, and it's even easier to use in an ASP.NET application. Now in any ASP.NET project type, you can right-click / Add / New Item... SignalR Hub or Persistent Connection. And much more... There's quite a bit more. You can find more info at http://asp.net/vnext, and we'll be adding more content as fast as we can. Watch my BUILD talk to see as I demonstrate these and other features in the ASP.NET Fall 2012 Update, as well as some other even futurey-er stuff!

    Read the article

  • Adding an Admin user to an ASP.NET MVC 4 application using a single drop-in file

    - by Jon Galloway
    I'm working on an ASP.NET MVC 4 tutorial and wanted to set it up so just dropping a file in App_Start would create a user named "Owner" and assign them to the "Administrator" role (more explanation at the end if you're interested). There are reasons why this wouldn't fit into most application scenarios: It's not efficient, as it checks for (and creates, if necessary) the user every time the app starts up The username, password, and role name are hardcoded in the app (although they could be pulled from config) Automatically creating an administrative account in code (without user interaction) could lead to obvious security issues if the user isn't informed However, with some modifications it might be more broadly useful - e.g. creating a test user with limited privileges, ensuring a required account isn't accidentally deleted, or - as in my case - setting up an account for demonstration or tutorial purposes. Challenge #1: Running on startup without requiring the user to install or configure anything I wanted to see if this could be done just by having the user drop a file into the App_Start folder and go. No copying code into Global.asax.cs, no installing addition NuGet packages, etc. That may not be the best approach - perhaps a NuGet package with a dependency on WebActivator would be better - but I wanted to see if this was possible and see if it offered the best experience. Fortunately ASP.NET 4 and later provide a PreApplicationStartMethod attribute which allows you to register a method which will run when the application starts up. You drop this attribute in your application and give it two parameters: a method name and the type that contains it. I created a static class named PreApplicationTasks with a static method named, then dropped this attribute in it: [assembly: PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(PreApplicationTasks), "Initializer")] That's it. One small gotcha: the namespace can be a problem with assembly attributes. I decided my class didn't need a namespace. Challenge #2: Only one PreApplicationStartMethod per assembly In .NET 4, the PreApplicationStartMethod is marked as AllMultiple=false, so you can only have one PreApplicationStartMethod per assembly. This was fixed in .NET 4.5, as noted by Jon Skeet, so you can have as many PreApplicationStartMethods as you want (allowing you to keep your users waiting for the application to start indefinitely!). The WebActivator NuGet package solves the multiple instance problem if you're in .NET 4 - it registers as a PreApplicationStartMethod, then calls any methods you've indicated using [assembly: WebActivator.PreApplicationStartMethod(type, method)]. David Ebbo blogged about that here:  Light up your NuGets with startup code and WebActivator. In my scenario (bootstrapping a beginner level tutorial) I decided not to worry about this and stick with PreApplicationStartMethod. Challenge #3: PreApplicationStartMethod kicks in before configuration has been read This is by design, as Phil explains. It allows you to make changes that need to happen very early in the pipeline, well before Application_Start. That's fine in some cases, but it caused me problems when trying to add users, since the Membership Provider configuration hadn't yet been read - I got an exception stating that "Default Membership Provider could not be found." The solution here is to run code that requires configuration in a PostApplicationStart method. But how to do that? Challenge #4: Getting PostApplicationStartMethod without requiring WebActivator The WebActivator NuGet package, among other things, provides a PostApplicationStartMethod attribute. That's generally how I'd recommend running code that needs to happen after Application_Start: [assembly: WebActivator.PostApplicationStartMethod(typeof(TestLibrary.MyStartupCode), "CallMeAfterAppStart")] This works well, but I wanted to see if this would be possible without WebActivator. Hmm. Well, wait a minute - WebActivator works in .NET 4, so clearly it's registering and calling PostApplicationStartup tasks somehow. Off to the source code! Sure enough, there's even a handy comment in ActivationManager.cs which shows where PostApplicationStartup tasks are being registered: public static void Run() { if (!_hasInited) { RunPreStartMethods(); // Register our module to handle any Post Start methods. But outside of ASP.NET, just run them now if (HostingEnvironment.IsHosted) { Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicModuleHelper.DynamicModuleUtility.RegisterModule(typeof(StartMethodCallingModule)); } else { RunPostStartMethods(); } _hasInited = true; } } Excellent. Hey, that DynamicModuleUtility seems familiar... Sure enough, K. Scott Allen mentioned it on his blog last year. This is really slick - a PreApplicationStartMethod can register a new HttpModule in code. Modules are run right after application startup, so that's a perfect time to do any startup stuff that requires configuration to be read. As K. Scott says, it's this easy: using System; using System.Web; using Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicModuleHelper; [assembly:PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(MyAppStart), "Start")] public class CoolModule : IHttpModule { // implementation not important // imagine something cool here } public static class MyAppStart { public static void Start() { DynamicModuleUtility.RegisterModule(typeof(CoolModule)); } } Challenge #5: Cooperating with SimpleMembership The ASP.NET MVC Internet template includes SimpleMembership. SimpleMembership is a big improvement over traditional ASP.NET Membership. For one thing, rather than forcing a database schema, it can work with your database schema. In the MVC 4 Internet template case, it uses Entity Framework Code First to define the user model. SimpleMembership bootstrap includes a call to InitializeDatabaseConnection, and I want to play nice with that. There's a new [InitializeSimpleMembership] attribute on the AccountController, which calls \Filters\InitializeSimpleMembershipAttribute.cs::OnActionExecuting(). That comment in that method that says "Ensure ASP.NET Simple Membership is initialized only once per app start" which sounds like good advice. I figured the best thing would be to call that directly: new Mvc4SampleApplication.Filters.InitializeSimpleMembershipAttribute().OnActionExecuting(null); I'm not 100% happy with this - in fact, it's my least favorite part of this solution. There are two problems - first, directly calling a method on a filter, while legal, seems odd. Worse, though, the Filter lives in the application's namespace, which means that this code no longer works well as a generic drop-in. The simplest workaround would be to duplicate the relevant SimpleMembership initialization code into my startup code, but I'd rather not. I'm interested in your suggestions here. Challenge #6: Module Init methods are called more than once When debugging, I noticed (and remembered) that the Init method may be called more than once per page request - it's run once per instance in the app pool, and an individual page request can cause multiple resource requests to the server. While SimpleMembership does have internal checks to prevent duplicate user or role entries, I'd rather not cause or handle those exceptions. So here's the standard single-use lock in the Module's init method: void IHttpModule.Init(HttpApplication context) { lock (lockObject) { if (!initialized) { //Do stuff } initialized = true; } } Putting it all together With all of that out of the way, here's the code I came up with: using Mvc4SampleApplication.Filters; using System.Web; using System.Web.Security; using WebMatrix.WebData; [assembly: PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(PreApplicationTasks), "Initializer")] public static class PreApplicationTasks { public static void Initializer() { Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicModuleHelper.DynamicModuleUtility .RegisterModule(typeof(UserInitializationModule)); } } public class UserInitializationModule : IHttpModule { private static bool initialized; private static object lockObject = new object(); private const string _username = "Owner"; private const string _password = "p@ssword123"; private const string _role = "Administrator"; void IHttpModule.Init(HttpApplication context) { lock (lockObject) { if (!initialized) { new InitializeSimpleMembershipAttribute().OnActionExecuting(null); if (!WebSecurity.UserExists(_username)) WebSecurity.CreateUserAndAccount(_username, _password); if (!Roles.RoleExists(_role)) Roles.CreateRole(_role); if (!Roles.IsUserInRole(_username, _role)) Roles.AddUserToRole(_username, _role); } initialized = true; } } void IHttpModule.Dispose() { } } The Verdict: Is this a good thing? Maybe. I think you'll agree that the journey was undoubtedly worthwhile, as it took us through some of the finer points of hooking into application startup, integrating with membership, and understanding why the WebActivator NuGet package is so useful Will I use this in the tutorial? I'm leaning towards no - I think a NuGet package with a dependency on WebActivator might work better: It's a little more clear what's going on Installing a NuGet package might be a little less error prone than copying a file A novice user could uninstall the package when complete It's a good introduction to NuGet, which is a good thing for beginners to see This code either requires either duplicating a little code from that filter or modifying the file to use the namespace Honestly I'm undecided at this point, but I'm glad that I can weigh the options. If you're interested: Why are you doing this? I'm updating the MVC Music Store tutorial to ASP.NET MVC 4, taking advantage of a lot of new ASP.NET MVC 4 features and trying to simplify areas that are giving people trouble. One change that addresses both needs us using the new OAuth support for membership as much as possible - it's a great new feature from an application perspective, and we get a fair amount of beginners struggling with setting up membership on a variety of database and development setups, which is a distraction from the focus of the tutorial - learning ASP.NET MVC. Side note: Thanks to some great help from Rick Anderson, we had a draft of the tutorial that was looking pretty good earlier this summer, but there were enough changes in ASP.NET MVC 4 all the way up to RTM that there's still some work to be done. It's high priority and should be out very soon. The one issue I ran into with OAuth is that we still need an Administrative user who can edit the store's inventory. I thought about a number of solutions for that - making the first user to register the admin, or the first user to use the username "Administrator" is assigned to the Administrator role - but they both ended up requiring extra code; also, I worried that people would use that code without understanding it or thinking about whether it was a good fit.

    Read the article

  • Does unit testing lead to premature generalization (specifically in the context of C++)?

    - by Martin
    Preliminary notes I'll not go into the distinction of the different kinds of test there are, there are already a few questions on these sites regarding that. I'll take what's there and that says: unit testing in the sense of "testing the smallest isolatable unit of an application" from which this question actually derives The isolation problem What is the smallest isolatable unit of a program. Well, as I see it, it (highly?) depends on what language you are coding in. Micheal Feathers talks about the concept of a seam: [WEwLC, p31] A seam is a place where you can alter behavior in your program without editing in that place. And without going into the details, I understand a seam -- in the context of unit testing -- to be a place in a program where your "test" can interface with your "unit". Examples Unit test -- especially in C++ -- require from the code under test to add more seams that would be strictly called for for a given problem. Example: Adding a virtual interface where non-virtual implementation would have been sufficient Splitting -- generalizing(?) -- a (smallish) class further "just" to facilitate adding a test. Splitting a single-executable project into seemingly "independent" libs, "just" to facilitate compiling them independently for the tests. The question I'll try a few versions that hopefully ask about the same point: Is the way that Unit Tests require one to structure an application's code "only" beneficial for the unit tests or is it actually beneficial to the applications structure. Is the generalization code need to exhibit to be unit-testable useful for anything but the unit tests? Does adding unit tests force one to generalize unnecessarily? Is the shape unit tests force on code "always" also a good shape for the code in general as seen from the problem domain? I remember a rule of thumb that said don't generalize until you need to / until there's a second place that uses the code. With Unit Tests, there's always a second place that uses the code -- namely the unit test. So is this reason enough to generalize?

    Read the article

  • How to do integrated testing?

    - by Enthusiastic Programmer
    So I have been reading up on a lot of books surrounding testing. But all the books I've read have the same flaws. They will all tell you the definitions of testing. But I have not found a single book that will guide you into integration testing (or pretty much anything higher then unit testing). Is integration testing that elusive or am I reading the wrong books? I'm a hands on person, so I would appreciate it if someone could help me with a simple program: Let's say you need to make some sort of calculation program that calculates something (doesn't matter what) and exports it to *.txt file. Let's assume we use the Model View Controller design principle. And one class for the actual calculating which you'll use in the model and one for writing the textfile. So: View = Controller = Model = CalculationClass, FileClass So for unittesting: You'd test the calculationClass, I'd personally focus most of my unit tests there. And less time on unit testing the view/controller/FileClass. I personally wouldn't see the use of unittesting those unless you want a really robust program. Integration testing: Now this is where I run into a wall. What would I have to test to call it an integration test? I could stub the view and feed the controller data which it would pass on to the model and so forth. And then check what the view gets back in the end. But ... Couldn't I just run the (in this case small) program then and test it manually? Would this be considered a integration test too, or does it have to be automated? Also, can I check multiple items to see if they are correct? I cannot seem to find any book that offers a hands on approach to methods of integration testing.

    Read the article

  • How to mock Request.Files[] in MVC unit test class?

    - by kapil
    I want to test a controller method in MVC unit test. For my controller method to test, I require a Request.Files[] collection with length one. I want to mock Request.Files[] as I have used a file upload control on my view rendered by controller method. Can anyone please suggest how can I mock request.file collection in my unit test. thanks, kapil

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net MVC, strongly typed view with DateTime not accepted?

    - by Anders Juul
    Hi all, I wish to create a view like <%@ Control Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewUserControl<System.DateTime?>" %> but I get an error saying that DateTime must be a reference type in order to use for parameter TModel. Fair enough, but I google plenty of examples that implement just what I try to achieve. Any clues as to what I need to change/install/update? Any comments welcome, Anders, Denmark

    Read the article

  • Why does not Asp.net mvc application work on Asp.Net Classic Application Pool?

    - by Amitabh
    I have an Asp.Net MVC 2 web application deployed on IIS 7.5 on .Net 4.0. When I select application pool as Asp.Net v4.0 Classic I get the following error. HTTP Error 403.14 - Forbidden The Web server is configured to not list the contents of this directory. The same application works fine when I select application pool as Asp.Net v4.0 Integrated. Does anyone know what is the reason for this?

    Read the article

  • How can I include an external JavaScript file exactly once per partial view?

    - by AaronSieb
    I have a partial view (UserControl) that implements a simple pager in my Asp.Net MVC project. This pager needs access to a .js file that needs to be included exactly once, regardless of how many instances of the pager control are present on the parent page. I've tried to use Page.ClientScript.RegisterClientScriptInclude, but it had no effect (I assume because the code nugget was evaluated too late to impact the head control). Is there any simple alternative?

    Read the article

  • Can you overload controller methods in ASP.Net MVC?

    - by Eric Brown
    Im curious to see if you can overload controller methods in ASP.Net MVC. Whenever I try, I get the error below. The two methods accept different arguements. Is this something that cannot be done? The current request for action 'MyMethod' on controller type 'MyController' is ambiguous between the following action methods:

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC Route based on Web Browser/Device (e.g. iPhone)

    - by Alex
    Is it possible, from within ASP.NET MVC, to route to different controllers or actions based on the accessing device/browser? I'm thinking of setting up alternative actions and views for some parts of my website in case it is accessed from the iPhone, to optimize display and functionality of it. I don't want to create a completely separate project for the iPhone though as the majority of the site is fine on any device. Any idea on how to do this?

    Read the article

  • How to implement a caching model without violating MVC pattern?

    - by RPM1984
    Hi Guys, I have an ASP.NET MVC 3 (Razor) Web Application, with a particular page which is highly database intensive, and user experience is of the upmost priority. Thus, i am introducing caching on this particular page. I'm trying to figure out a way to implement this caching pattern whilst keeping my controller thin, like it currently is without caching: public PartialViewResult GetLocationStuff(SearchPreferences searchPreferences) { var results = _locationService.FindStuffByCriteria(searchPreferences); return PartialView("SearchResults", results); } As you can see, the controller is very thin, as it should be. It doesn't care about how/where it is getting it's info from - that is the job of the service. A couple of notes on the flow of control: Controllers get DI'ed a particular Service, depending on it's area. In this example, this controller get's a LocationService Services call through to an IQueryable<T> Repository and materialize results into T or ICollection<T>. How i want to implement caching: I can't use Output Caching - for a few reasons. First of all, this action method is invoked from the client-side (jQuery/AJAX), via [HttpPost], which according to HTTP standards should not be cached as a request. Secondly, i don't want to cache purely based on the HTTP request arguments - the cache logic is a lot more complicated than that - there is actually two-level caching going on. As i hint to above, i need to use regular data-caching, e.g Cache["somekey"] = someObj;. I don't want to implement a generic caching mechanism where all calls via the service go through the cache first - i only want caching on this particular action method. First thought's would tell me to create another service (which inherits LocationService), and provide the caching workflow there (check cache first, if not there call db, add to cache, return result). That has two problems: The services are basic Class Libraries - no references to anything extra. I would need to add a reference to System.Web here. I would have to access the HTTP Context outside of the web application, which is considered bad practice, not only for testability, but in general - right? I also thought about using the Models folder in the Web Application (which i currently use only for ViewModels), but having a cache service in a models folder just doesn't sound right. So - any ideas? Is there a MVC-specific thing (like Action Filter's, for example) i can use here? General advice/tips would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >