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?
Castle.MicroKernel.ComponentActivator.ComponentActivatorException : ComponentActivator: could not instantiate Strix.Customs.Tests.Configuration.TestAppConfigurationAccessor
---- System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException : Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.
-------- System.IO.FileNotFoundException : The configuration file 'appsettings.json' was not found and is not optional.
appsettings.json is set to copy always.
Any ideas why none of the unit tests work?
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:
Has anyone had success with a different M5 layout?
It looks like the M5 source is included but not required, and it's missing the required lib files to compile the scss.
Would it be best to try and fix that and compile from scratch, or download a distribution of a different layout?
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.
I upgraded the project to 5.0, but it seems 5.0 release is missing the migration to update existing users with the new app permissions.
Please provide.
I am in the process of upgrading to 5.0.4, and it looks like the wwwroot/lib files are not included in the project, so the server does not provide them in debug mode? This causes issues when debugging.
What am I doing wrong?
<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.