You've found the heartbeat of .NET-where projects and communities come together to get things done in our open-source world. Share your skills for the greater good. Meet in person, get involved virtually, and stay on top of the latest news, meetups, and events.
Join us for .NET Community Standups every Tuesday and Thursday, On.NET, The Xamarin Show, Design Reviews, and more!
47:51 FWIW, the screenshot you're taking a look at currently was simply to demonstrate that I was getting the CA2017 as expected when having the case of "too many params" for the provided message template. This coupled with the lack of an analyzer warning when using a badly formed message template like `"test {foo}}", nameof(foo)` (note extra brace) was the reasoning behind submitting the analyzer request
I like David's angle of wanting .NET to be seen as "as cool as" other frameworks. I'm not a .NETter (_AND_ I'm a reformed Microsoft hater) myself so perhaps I'm very well qualified to say that "the rest of us" do see ".NET" and think "oh yeah, tedious corporate guff!" and turn back to Python or Vue.JS or something "that's more fun". David's right in saying that .NET probably has just as much to offer us as our preferred environments.
I think they took (copied, stole 😂 whatever) the ContentItem concept from SharePoint but executed in better way The documentation seems to be intentionally made insufficient so that people will turn to buying training courses. Lack of sufficient and quality documentation disqualifies this platform to be considered for business recommendations. I think they are happy and content, making money from training or serving customers directly.
With regards to STJ RespectNullableReferenceTypes, I think it should also implicitly imply "required" or else it won't really be that useful and might just confuse even more.
Wow, that segment on XmlSecureResolver looked so tense, really surprised you did it. Also, I can't believe it had been this way for 6 whole releases and noone noticed 😬 This should really, really be obsoleted on all downlevel TFMs that can be run on Core (possibly even including .NET Framework to warn people since those assemblies can be referenced from Core).
What's the point of continually adding features if existing features like this Workflow from years ago (built by Sipke) don't work? Years ago, I tried to build something realistic together with colleagues for a few months. It was a disaster. You'll be fighting Orchard's bugs more than what you actually want to build. This OrchardCore has too many problems to list. But one thing is certainly the worst of them all and that is reliability. You can never rely on it. There were always too many bugs. It's a framework/CMS that you use and hope it works. You hope that if you do something according to the documentation, it still works. You hope that next week will continue to work and you hope that if there is a new minor release, existing features will still continue to work, you hope and you hope... You can never rely on it.
I am experiencing the same frustration. Today's will be the last day I will spend on this. Next I will move on to evaluate DNN. I need something on .NET
Hmm, could someone explain to me why "Description" and "Price" were changed to indexer properties? is it faster to access or something? but a table won't have many columns no? Maybe to configure further constraints for these properties in the model builder? I am kinda lost there. Edit: upon further thinking and reading, I guess you can dynamically add extra fields and just configure the actual fields in the model builder. Im still not sure why youd make fields that are for sure in the actual table an indexer property.. that doesnt need to be dynamic right? (at this point, I feel like my question and doubts are too mixed up and its just becoming a note for me that will go into the void and no one will address haha!) Ok another question, why did it NOT throw error when categoryId was not set to null before?? Also, I thought using navigation properties were the preferred convention, and also more maintanable? perhaps I am wrong, when would you need to stick to just foreingn key ID's? Is it because of performance? does this mean when you use navigation property, whole model is loaded into RAM? could that be the only reason? I am just trying to understand a little bit more. Now, I know already much newer versions of EF is out, just trying to understand these features more, I wonder how these features are now, in EF 7, really interesting though. I hope it's not stupid question, just finishing my first year of programming, loving .NET so far.
Good job! I have question. How you can execute this kind of code and catch any exceptions? Could you try to execute it? string code = @" var sum = 0; function stackOverflowSimulator() { sum = sum+1; stackOverflowSimulator(); } stackOverflowSimulator();"; var engine = new Engine(); var result = engine.Execute(code).GetCompletionValue();
Thanks for the helpful video on GitHub Quick Reviews! Your explanation was clear and concise, making it easier to understand this valuable aspect of the platform. Keep up the good work in sharing such informative content!
It was awesome spots to consider, thanks a lot. What would you suggest about the techniques to apply for using reactjs in server side rendering and also using multiple server application layers, instead simple API calls, in order to give more security control to the application?
This API sucks, it's ugly and difficult to discover. The parser is good and argument conventions are good but I think options and commands should be declared in one place and like a collection initializer, or a class based intialization with attrbiutes should be used (NamingConventionBinder does not seem neat, still complicated). One library out of all command line libraries, which does this properly is PowerArgs (I don't know why it's not more popular). One bad thing about PowerArgs, may be the missing sub-commands feature (maybe they added that recently?). Maybe I should make use of System.Commandline parser and roll out a class-based library on top of it.
Guys thank you for the great video! Question now .. Can this library Jint be somehow unsafe to use? Consider I would like to use it in a way that the script you pass to the engine as parameter is set by users , so a user can potentially inject any code in it. Can this bring to security issues? Looking forward!
Hello, thank you for the wonderful presentation. Is there a way to directly share user flow charts to Azure Portal or any other visualization tool like Grafana or Power BI? This would allow us to view the charts within these tools without the need to save and upload them through a lengthy process of clicks. The reason I am asking, is there is no integration between user flow chart and KQL unlike other metrics such as page view, and custom events
Dotmim.Sync.SyncException: 'Seems you are trying another Setup that what is stored in your client scope database. You have already made a sync with a setup that has been stored in the client database. And you are trying now a new setup in your code, different from the one you have used before. If you want to use 2 differents setups, please use a different a scope name for each setup. If you want to replace the setup stored in database with a new one, make a migration (see docs).
Enjoyed this tutorial. I have an existing C# application that controls legacy hardware. The C# application is a .exe file. Is there an way to send stream deck commands to this app? This existing app has an existing UI and controls devices through an RS232 port. I can only have one program connected to the port at a time. Curious if this plugin approach would work in this case or if responding to windows messaging events or some other mechanism would be appropriate? Thanks!
I just joined through a link for keyed services mention on PR and this mechanical keyboard clicking is not only frustrating but terribly rude if the person talking can hear it...
I get why it's important to have these talks, and agree on public shapes, but the IMeterFactory seems so contentious that it's borderline painful. It seems to be a symptom of unclear understanding of what this meter thing is and what it solves. It's almost a "wouldn't it be cool if..." -design as proposed originally.
