Hi I have created a mvc website which is working fine with localhost if i am coding something like this:
<base href="http://localhost:5400/" />
<li><a class="home" href="/Home/Index/">Home</a></li>
<li class="wish"><a class="wishlist" href="/Products/Index/" id="wishlist-total">Products</a></li>
<li><a class="account" href="/Home/Contact/">Contact Us</a></li>
But now to run it on live if i am trying to changing this:
<base href="http://localhost:5400/" />
with this:
<base href="HttpContext.Current.Request.Url" />
then its actually taking full root url everytime.So whenever i am clicking on any menu and moves to next menu it regain previous menu path also.
For this issue i tried below code which is also not working.
<li>Home</li>
<li>Products</li>
<li> Contact</li>
According me this code will work,But if i am trying to pass "null" as third parameter then i gives error:
ERROR: 'null' is not declared. 'Null' constant is no longer supported; use 'System.DBNull' instead.
Can someone please suggest what i should need to change?
Thanks
Quick fix...
#Url.Action("Index", "Home")
There's no need to enter null as a parameter... if you want to indicate that a parameter can be null, then you need to define that in the route its self, and if the parameter is missing, then it will know that the value is null implicitly...
// http://yoursite/Example/{id}
[Route("~/Example/{id}"] // Can't be null
public ActionResult Example(string id){ return View(); }
// http://yoursite/ExampleTwo/
[Route("~/ExampleTwo/{id?} // Can be null
public ActionResult ExampleTwo(string id) { return View(); }
TLDR if you want more errors...
Your issue is actually indicating a much larger issue... it looks as if you're accepting a query from a URI directly into a SQL query... if you are doing that, you're opening yourself up to injection attacks and as much as a part of me feels that anyone who does that pretty much has it coming to them... I can't stand by and just say nothing... sanitize any data that you receive from the user, no matter where it's coming from, example
Remove all those magic strings... you shouldn't have any strings such as the one you just displayed...
// Bad...
<a class="home" href="/Home/Index/">
// Better...
<a class="home" href="#Url.Action("Index", "Home")">Home</a>
// Good
#Html.ActionLink("Home", "Index", "Home")
Related
I have the following html part of code:
<li repeat.for="route of router.navigation" style="border: 0px;" if.bind="showNav(route)">
<a href.bind="route.href" if.bind="!route.settings.nav">
${route.title}
</a>
<a href="javascript:;" if.bind="route.settings.nav">
${route.title}
</a>
<ul if.bind="route.settings.nav" class="dropdown-menu">
<li repeat.for="menu of route.settings.nav" class="ul-menu">
<a href.bind="menu.href">${menu.title}</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
In Opera, Chrome this code works fine, but in IE & Edge doesn't work - I don't see this HTML-part.
Problem is in the following statement (in the first line):
if.bind="showNav(route)"
If I deleted it, I can see my navigation menu in Edge & IE also.
Code for showNav:
showNav(row) {
if (!row.config.role) {
return true;
}
this.currentUserName = localStorage.getItem("token_user");
var currentUser = localStorage.getItem("token_role");
var role = row.config.role.includes(currentUser);
return role;
}
If I add in showNav
console.log(row);
It logs undefined in Edge & IE, but in Opera & Chrome I see the full necessary value.
I work with Aurelia framework, so route.navigation goes from ts-file and has the necessary value.
What could be the problem?
The github issue from #jesse-de-bruijne is different, that if.bind and repeat.for are not on the same DOM element. Furthermore, that issue was FIXED long time ago. But anyway, the show.bind purposed by Jesse works.
The real issue is that you are using if.bind and repeat.for on exact same DOM element, which is not supported by Aurelia due to uneven behavior from browsers. Aurelia documentation has not yet addressed this.
Besides the show.bind fix, you can also use template element (which will result to no extra DOM wrapper actually) to seperate repeat.for and if.bind.
<template> <!-- the top level template in your html file -->
...
<template repeat.for="route of router.navigation">
<li style="border: 0px;" if.bind="showNav(route)">
...
</li>
</template>
...
</template>
FYI: Repeat, with and if are called template controllers. They bind before other bindings. You cannot use multiple template controller attributes on the same dom element (because of different behavior among browsers).
The above comment is from Aurelia core member jdanyow on one of my issues.
https://github.com/aurelia/templating-resources/issues/252
Indeed, different browsers sort the HTML attributes differently. That's why your code works on some browsers but not all.
Try using a show.bind instead, if.bind has had some trouble with a repeater on the same line.
For example: https://github.com/aurelia/templating-resources/issues/84
If you do need to use an if.bind, for performance reasons for example, try putting a div child in the repeater containing said if.bind.
I am trying to move my website to Hack and XHP, of course. Below is a structure of what code structure I want to achieve:
<ui:backstageHeader>
<ui:backstageHeader-navItem href="/">stories</ui:backstageHeader-navItem>
<ui:backstageHeader-navItem href="/story/send">send a story</ui:backstageHeader-navItem>
<ui:backstageHeader-navItem href="/aboutus">support</ui:backstageHeader-navItem>
</ui:backstageHeader>
(Note: :ui:backstageHeader-navItem basically renders to <a href={$this->:href}>{$this->getCHildren}</a> so there is not need to attach its class here.)
Below is the code for :ui:backstageHeader:
final class :ui:backstageHeader extends :ui:base {
attribute :div;
children (:ui:backstageHeader-navItem)*;
protected function compose() {
$dom =
<section class="backstage-header">
<div class="container">
<div class="cell-logo">
<a href="/">
<span class="no23-logo-white"></span>
</a>
</div>
<div class="cell-navigation">
</div>
<div class="cell-account">
<div class="cell-login">
<div id="siteNav-login">Autentificare</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>;
$mainContainer = $dom->getChildren("div")[0];
$cellNavigation = $mainContainer->getChildren("div")[1];
$navItems = <ul class="main-navigation"></ul>;
foreach($this->getChildren() as $child) {
$navItems->appendChild(<li>{$child}</li>);
}
$dom->appendChild($navItems);
return $dom;
}
}
I used the Terminal to debug my code using hhvm -m d <file.php>, and everything was alright there; however, when I get to my browser, I get 500 error header. This is what the log says:
Catchable fatal error: Hack type error: Could not find method getChildren in an object of type XHPChild at /var/www/res/ui/backstage-header.php line 25
The error comes from
$cellNavigation = $mainContainer->getChildren("div")[1];
But, somehow, I need to append ul.main-navigation to div.cell-navigation from my section.backstage-header.
How can I do it?
Don't structure your code this way. Built it up from the inside out, so that you don't have to do a ton of unreadable getChildren calls looking for specific children. Those calls are super hard to read, and super inflexible when you change the structure of your XHP. You wouldn't do something like node.firstChild.lastChild.lastChild.firstChild in the JS DOM, would you? No, there's a better way in JS, to find things by class or ID; in XHP, you can just build it up the right way in the first place!
I'd give you an example of this, but it doesn't look like you actually use $mainContainer or $cellNavigation, so you can just remove those two problematic definitions.
As an aside, you really shouldn't be getting your type errors as catchable fatals from HHVM; this is a last resort sort of check. Try running the hh_client checker directly, maybe even showing its result in your IDE; it will give you a much faster iteration cycle, and much more information than HHVM provides.
From my experience, appendChild is very prone to human error. It's easier to do something like:
$items = (new Vector($this->getChildren()))->map($child ==> <li>{$child}</li>);
return <div id="container">{$items}</div>;
If you want to wrap the children in <li />.
Not sure if that will work but it will be close.
Pro tip: You can assign variables from within an XHP tree.
$root =
<div>
{$child = <span>
Text children
</span>}
</div>;
Now $child is already set to the <span> element.
I'm passing an object to a view and am getting a null reference exception, but the object is not null.
In the Action I have this simple code:
return View(db.Users.First());
View code:
#model User
#using DG.WEB.Models
#{
ViewBag.SecondTitle = "Ver";
ViewBag.MostraEditarTab = "false";
ViewBag.MostraApagarTab = "false";
ViewBag.Tab = "tab2";
Layout = "~/Views/Conds/_Layout.cshtml";
}
<div class="container">
#if (Model != null)
{
<h5>#Model.Nome</h5>
<div id="container_atalhos">
<div class="btn-group">
<i class="icon-th-large"></i> Nova frac
<i class="icon-fire"></i> Nova Ocorrência
<i class="icon-shopping-cart"></i> Novo Fornecedor
<i class="icon-file"></i> Novo documento
<i class="icon-pencil"></i> Editar
<i class="icon-remove-circle icon-white"></i> Apagar
</div>
</div>
}else{
#:Not found
}
</div>
EDIT:
I just test a small code that prints the name of the first user in the view.
And it happens to me the same error!
The try / catch apparently works badly ... I do not understand.
Look at the picture
EDIT2:
I found the error. In the layout page there was an error and for some reason visual studio didnt detect it.
Thanks to all.
Usually such error are not directly related to the place where they blow up, but a consequence of IoC / Dependency Injection.
What basically happens is that in the background, the dependency injection is able to provide various objects as needed, but does this is a lazy fashion. So if something - like your layout page - isn't needed yet, it won't be created yet.
So then when you access something like your model, which can have internal requirements needing something like your layout, then the dependency injection kicks in, throwing an error at your model, even though the error is not model-related at all.
This is one of the really difficult aspects of dependency injection and will probably plague you again in the future :(.
There is also no best-practice I know of to avoid this. Your approach to gradually cornering the issue is the best way to go ahead AFAIK.
Currently, I do this:
<li><a wicket:id="link" href="#"><span wicket:id="name">jawa01</span></a></li>
and
item.add( new BookmarkablePageLink("link", ResourcePage.class)
.setParameter("name", item.getModelObject().getName())
.add( new Label("name", item.getModelObject().getName()) )
);
I want to do ommit the element:
<li><a wicket:id="link" href="#">...</a></li>
How should the java code look?
I expect something like
item.add( new BookmarkablePageLinkWithLabel(
"link", ResourcePage.class, item.getModelObject().getName())
.setParameter("name", item.getModelObject().getName())
);
Thanks, Ondra
This is not built into Wicket, with a couple of reasons presented here.
However, you can certainly make you own component out of what you currently do to make your life easier. The constructor would take both the model for the link and the model for the label.
All,
Doing some experimenting with Spark and MVC within NerdDinner. The normal/aspx view works well, and I haven't touched any of the controller code so I'm pretty sure it's not that.
<viewdata model="System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable[[NerdDinner.Models.Dinner]]"/>
<set Title="'Upcoming Dinners'"/>
<content:main>
<li each="p in Model">
!{Html.ActionLink(p.Title, 'Details', 'Dinners')}
</li>
</content:main>
Given the code above, the ActionLink gets rendered as http://serverName/Controller/Action/
Which is good. I start hitting a wall when I try to provide the ID to my action method. As far as I can tell from the Spark sample docs, I should be able to do something like this:
!{Html.ActionLink(p.Title, 'Details', 'Dinners', new {id = p.DinnerID} )}
However, that throws an exception:
" unexpected token '{' "
I'm hoping it's something silly I'm missing...any suggestions?
I believe there should be another parameter to Html.ActionLink for HTML attributes on the action link. Try:
!{Html.ActionLink(p.Title, 'Details', 'Dinners', new {id = p.DinnerID}, null )}