Imagine you have the standard top menu for the application, you navigate from the tenant page to a tenant details view.
There is a left nav built using the navigation provider, that has an edit and delete link to pages instead of modals.
Those edit and delete links reference actions that have a parameter, but the navigation provider does not appear to support actions with parameters.
(This is not our exact scenario, and is only presented as an example.)
We are trying to determine the best approach to fit our needs, because we will have a lot of menus like this, and we don't want to make extensive customizations to the NavigationProvider class in the event it gets updated in the future, unless we absolutely have to.
I would just like to chime in that I think this would be very useful.
Especially topics like hosting, deployments, CI, etc.
I know this isn't necessarily Volosoft's responsibility, but there are some unique challenges due to the framework. For instance, the nature of the application means that our TeamCity build process has some extra steps, and must create two separate packages for Octopus, one for the migration project, and one for the web app, because we are deploying the application to an Azure Web App.
Also, it seems like a lot of the customers are choosing this product because they don't have the resources to develop the framework on their own, so it stands to reason that they may not have dedicated senior DevOps to guide them.
For our team, it definitely took us a while to realize that we needed to go back to the ABP documentation and really dig into it before we could understand how to work with Zero. In the beginning it was very unclear for us where ABP ended and Zero began (the truth of the matter is, ABP is really all that matters. Everything in Zero is just customization / extensions to ABP.)
But from a business perspective, their team is small, and they actually have better documentation that most frameworks I've worked with outside of monolithic frameworks like Angular. I think, as consumers, we could contribute a lot to the community by sharing our solutions, and Volosoft could contribute by compiling them into an easy to consume platform (a Wiki or something) that would allow us to find these solutions in a better format than the forums.
Just my two cents :D
I tried both ReSharper and VS test runner.
It turned out to be an issue with shadow copying, and even with ReSharper set to not shadow copy, it still would.
I ended up having to create an xunit.runner.json in the test project and set shadowCopy: false, per this:
<a class="postlink" href="https://xunit.github.io/docs/configuring-with-json.html">https://xunit.github.io/docs/configuring-with-json.html</a>
I know that it's failing in AppConfigurations.BuildConfiguration, but only in tests.
BuildConfiguration has no issues when it gets called from the TestModule PreInitialize method?
There are no errors, and we ran the Gulp tasks.
I would add that this ONLY happens if the "fixed header" class is NOT applied. It looks like the fixed header puts a z-index that forces the dropdowns up, but when it's not fixed, the z-index isn't obeyed.
I'm also having the menu issue:
I mean none of the existing admin users can access the new visual settings tab because 5.0 is missing a script to add new permissions to existing accounts.
<cite>ismcagdas: </cite> Thanks @BBakerMMC :),
Here is the related documentation <a class="postlink" href="https://aspnetzero.com/Documents/Development-Guide-Core#npm--front-end-dependencies">https://aspnetzero.com/Documents/Develo ... pendencies</a>.
Thanks guys. I swear I looked all over and couldn't find it.
I had the NPM step (via yarn), but I was missing the gulp tasks.
<cite>BBakerMMC: </cite> My guess is there is some translation issues. How I read it was, after your license expires it no longer performs the license check and it just says "I'm Allowed". It probably calls the server with the key, says oh you're license has expired ignore the check. (Note: I could be wrong).
For all I know the key we have is some hash that before it calls out to the external server is decoded and returns a expiration date and then doesn't call the license server if its expired.
I think the guys should provide the full details on what is expected and how the system works with some examples.
They also provided a couple of ways for you to bypass the check, don't run in debug mode. (I wonder if remote debug would trigger the check). Block the site its trying to check against to force it to never work. Don't make copies of the code youre not licensed for.
If they had a non licensed checked subscription for xxx $ would you purchase it? IE Licensed Checked 1 Project 1000, Non Licensen Checked Unlimited 15000. I can only see non license checked as unlimited since they wouldnt have control at that time.
I dug into their licensing code a bit, but it's difficult to follow since they've used Dotfuscator or a similar tool to obfuscate the implementation details. I followed it enough to discover it makes use of external Http calls, and raised the concern there.
The idea of a license check doesn't bother me. I completely understand and support their need to protect their product. It's a fantastic product, and I can see how developers might be inclined to take advantage of that (although I doubt most companies would, at least not in the US, since the $150,000 fine for using unlicensed software is extremely discouraging, especially for a license that only costs a few thousand.)
My concern is ensuring that, should my license expire, or Volosoft go out of business, I can continue to develop my product unimpeded. My product is being developed with an expected lifespan of 10 years, and a projected 10 year development cost of well over 2 million USD. One of the reasons we chose the Zero Framework is because of its exceptional value. The cost of it doubled (and with good reason) with the release of 5.0, but it was unannounced, along with the implementation of the license check.
I only plan on extending the license during early development, mostly to receive bug fixes and minor feature improvements. By the time we go to production, the code base will differ significantly to the point that it's unlikely that we will get tremendous value out of new versions, and merging them will likely be far more expensive in terms of development costs than the value will provide.
This seems to directly contradict the FAQ?
"After your license perid ends, you can continue developing your application and use ASP.NET Zero forever. Also, you can always update ASP.NET Boilerplate and module-zero nuget packages, since they are open source projects and will always be open source. You can continue to access all documentation since it's public. But you will not get ASP.NET Zero upgrades anymore, can not access to Github repository. Also, your premium forum membership ends. You can surely use community section of the forum as always. "
