I have been trying to convert a test from NUnit to MSTest, using VB.Net 2.0. However, I get the following message:"Method AntecedentImportFixture.FixtureSetup has wrong signature. The method should be marked static."When I change the method to Shared, I get a message that says ""cannot refer to an instance member of a class from within a shared method" on a private variable that I am trying to reference. How do you get around this "static" issue while using MSTest in VB.Net?
I have a C# method in my datatier that I am trying to convert to VB.Net. I converted it to VB.Net but when I bring up the datatier class the method is not showing. It has been a long time since i have used VB.Net and forgot alot of things [code]I believe it has to do with the declaration, which i have as:Public Static Function UserActInfo(ByVal _eno As String) As useraccount..
I have a C# dll and want to use it in VB.NET. I'm using C# 2008 Express and VB 2008 Express. I have added a reference in a VB project to the C# dll. When I create an instane of a class in the C# dll, it gives the following error messsage: "Type 'RF.RabinFingerprint' has no constructors". My C# dll code:
using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text;[code].......
I'm creating a Shared (static) method in ASP.NET MVC so it can be used by any controller in my project. This static method needs to generate a URL. I think I need to use System.Web.Mvc.UrlHelper, but I can't figure out how to call it from within a static method.The constructor seems to want a RequestContext.
I have a base class with several derived classes. I want all of my derived classes to have the same Public Shared (static) method with their own implementation. How do I do this? Is it even possible?
I have some files in vb.net that have "Option Strict Off" to allow for bad programming. When I convert to c# I use "dynamic" until I come back and fix problems, and this works in all cases But now I have this code:
Public Class ContractResults 'Big class definition Public Shared Sub CleanCache()
[code].....
And in a file with Option Strict Off:
Public Sub VerifyResults(result as Object) 'Here, result is normally ContractResults 'first it check for that then call this: result.CleanCache() End Sub
In c# I use "dynamic", but a runtime error pops up when I call "static" method with dynamic reference. In vb.net, I can called "shared" sub from instance, but in c# this is not allowed
Exception: "Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder.RuntimeBinderException" "Member 'ContractTypes.ContractResults.CleanCache()' cannot be accessed with an instance reference; qualify it with a type name instead"
It seems I must convert code to use actual type, but then this means much rewriting of more parts. Is anyone able to show another way?I want to make sure you do not think I can use (result as ContractResults).CleanCache();Because all types that may be passed in have "CleanCache()" method, but do not inherits from anything the same other than "Object". There are many types (30!) that have this "static" method and so that is why it uses Option Strict Off?
In Visual Studio 2010, create a VB.net Windows Forms App. Add 2 forms: Form1 and Form2. In the Form1 Load event type Form2.Close(). Now if we look in the method definition Close() is not a static (shared) method. So how is this possible to compile or to work at run time.
Furthermore, do the same thing in C# and Form2.Close(); doesn't compile.
What's going on? Why is this possible in VB.net and what is actually happening when that line of code is executed?
I hate to see the name of the class used as a string parameter like "FileDownloader" in the code, and I would like to use something like this FileDownloader.Name(), where FileDownloader is name of the class.Only problem is that I can't find out how to do that without instantiating object or creating a static method..Is there a way to get a class name in .net without having the object instance and without creating a static method that returns the name of the class?
Under Visual Basic 2010, I am trying to define a specific instance of a static method that was created as a Java class. I have a vendor supplied dll added in as a reference.[code]...
But, I can't seem to define a specific instance of this method. Using "IntegrationMethod.getIntegrationMode()"always returns a value of zero.
There doesn't appear to be any way to "setIntegrationMode" to a specific value.
The documentatoin for this Class as provided by the vendor are shown below.
When I asked the vendor for assistance, their response was: "
Our javadocs for the IntegrationMethod class show that we provide three predefined instances of the IntegrationMethod class[code]...
If i put the below in visual studio command line it works perfectly.MSTest.exe /testmetadata:"C:Usersdrm111DocumentsQualityAssuranceQualityAssurance.vsmdi" /resultsfile:c: empmyresults.trx
But I don't know how to call it using a VB script. Basically i want to call the cmd line and run the vsmdi but i want to do it through VB.net code. so the flow will be VB.net --> cmd line --> which runs mstest.exe with my arguments.
As an OSS library author, I've always tried to make my stuff CLS compliant. But MS doesn't make this easy. They often put you in catch-22 situations, such as the following:You cannot have a protected variable differing only in case from the public property.You cannot have protected or public variables starting in an underscore or 'm_'. If you want to make a class really extensible, you often need to have protected variables matching public properties. Your least ugly exit is to add a suffix to the variable, like "Var" or "Value". That's nasty and unacceptable to me. I like clean code.I know of no .NET languages that don't support variables starting in an underscore, and I've used them in many places where the variable needs to be visible to subclasses.
I'm tired of the warnings, and I'm planning on turning off CLS compliance at the assembly level on my 30+ C# libraries.Are there any actual problems with turning off CLS compliance on libraries? Any real problems with doing this? Microsoft has issued unheedable guidance on software for decades, with less that 5% of it being worth the bytes it was encoded in. I can't find any evidence that this best practice has any real effect on anything. But, to be careful, I'm checking. And no, this is not a duplicate of the inverse of this question: Any reason not to mark a DLL as CLSCompliant?I'm looking for actual results and effects here, not the advice of a MS intern. For example, if IronPython, IronRuby, or F# are unable to read or write a variable starting with an underscore, that's an effect, although it would only cause a problem for users subclassing certain objects. If a language or tool is completely unable to use an assembly unless it is marked CLS compliant, now that's a big deal.
I can get it to tell me if the ISBN I entered is valid or not, but there is a second part I need that I keep drawing blanks on. I need to be able to enter an ISBN with a missing digit marked by a "?" in the textbox i am entering the ISBN in. For those who don't know what an ISBN is it...
An ISBN (International Standard Book Number) is a ten digit code which uniquely identifies a book. The first nine digits represent the book and the last digit is used to make sure the ISBN is correct. To verify an ISBN you calculate 10 times the first digit, plus 9 times the second digit, plus 8 times the third ... all the way until you add 1 times the last digit. If the final number leaves no remainder when divided by 11 the code is a valid ISBN.
1.Write a program that reads a ten digit number and validates it.(DONE)
2.Write a program that reads in a valid ISBN with a single missing digit, marked with a ?, and outputs the correct value for the missing digit.(Ehhh....)[code]So i need help making it so i can input a ISBN with a missing digit marked by "?" and output a valid ISBN with missing digit.
I am using an EntityDataSource with a FormView on VB.NET application. The FormView contains an AjaxControlToolKit TabContains with multiple tabs. Due to the fact that each tab is a naming container, Bind doesn't work properly for updating values (as discovered from reading other posts on stackoverflow). I instead have to declare UpdateParameters on my EntityDataSource.
Example markup is as follows: <asp:FormView ID="fv" runat="server" DataSourceID="eds" DataKeyNames="ID"> <EditItemTemplate> <asp:TabContainer ID="tc" runat="server"> <asp:TabPanel ID="tp" runat="server" HeaderText="Tab 1"> <ContentTemplate> [Code].....
This works great, until a customer is edited and their name is set to nothing (assuming in this case, a null name is allowed). The Name UpdateParameter is set to Null but the ObjectStateEntry is not set to modified for Null properties, even if previously the Entity had a value specified. As long as the name is changed to something other than Null, everything is updated correctly. I found a workaround by putting the following code in the Updating event of the EntityDataSource.
Dim ose As ObjectStateEntry = context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(action) For Each p As Parameter In eds.UpdateParameters ose.SetModifiedProperty(p.Name) Next
This makes sure that each property in the UpdateParameters has its state set to modified. It works, but it seems like a hack and I can see it causing problems down the road. Is there anything else I could do?
I have been developing some components for our products at work, and one of them is based off the flow layout panel.What i would like to do is provide a custom designer for it, but without loosing the features provided by it's default designer (System.Windows.Forms.Design.FlowLayoutPanelDesigner) which is marked as internal.Using Reflector i thought i would just implement it again myself, seeing as it inherits from 'FlowPanelDesigner and that from PanelDesigner` all of which are internal.
Why would these classes be specifically marked as internal? Is it due to them being specifically for Visual Studio use, and thus not 'framework' code?Also, is there an easier option that re-implementing all the functionality?
I have a "if This > That then" statement, that doesn't seem to work, as it triggers regardless that "This" is smaller than "that". Does it matter that these variables are marked as strings vs integers?
Possible Duplicate: Function or interface marked as restricted, or the function uses an Automation type not supported in Visual Basic.
Basically, im just searchign for uPnP devices using the uPNPDeviceFinder classes .FindByType method, .FindByUDN works, but FindByType gives an error:VB6 gives a compile error when I attempt to call the method:
Function or interface marked as restricted, or the function uses an Automation type not supported in Visual Basic.
why i am getting it. I am referencing and using the upnp.dll file as found in yoru system32 directory - when i reference and use this in VS2010 (say, vb.net) it all works and no issues are found, but in VB6, i get the error above.
I have an application that is primarily developed on an x86 machine. I recently checked the app out of TFS onto a Win 7 x64 machine for development. However, every single form level resource file shows up in the error list with an entry like the following:
is not a valid Win32 application. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x800700C1) Line 127, position 5. C:Users...shortened...FormsfrmCustomer.resx Line 127 Column 5
What I find interesting is that my application level resource files aren't showing the same error. Plus, these are just XML files. They aren't applications in any way.
I'm currently working under VB2010 beta 2 on both machines. Obviously, with a bunch of errors, the app won't compile on the x64 machine.
Consider a MyForm class that contains a shadowed implementation of Show(). It also contains a CreateForm() method, which accepts an instance of the form and calls the shadowed sub:
The problem is, having converted from VS 2002 to VS 2008 the designer can't seem to handle the custom controls on "my" (not original designer) app. Any time I try to copy, in particular, the custom derived comboBox control I get this error initially:
Type 'Corporate.Controls.data.comboBox+comboBoxDataSource+Item' in Assembly Corporate.Controls, ... is not marked as serializable.
I chased this error down, marking classes Serializable and private variables therein as NonSerialized when they caused a problem (which might or might not be the smartest way to attack this problem...) but I've hit a brick wall. The most base corporate derived ComboBox class is:
Namespace Corporate.Controls Public Class comboBox Inherits System.Windows.Forms.ComboBox ... End Class
It's unrealistic to post all of the relevant code (I believe). The short of it is:
I just kept backtracking through the errors.At this point I can't set System.Windows.Forms.ComboBox to Serializable. I've tried marking the Inherits System.Windows.Forms.ComboBox clause with <NonSerialized()> and while that doesn't cause a build error it doesn't seem to fix the designer-generated error in the other libraries when I go to actually add, copy or even delete the control in WYSIWYG. And that is the only reference to System.Windows.Forms.ComboBox in that (or any other) corporate library.
I am rewriting a C# class in VB. The C# class has a static constructor in it:
static Class() { ... }
which, through the Call Stack, I found is called by the main window's InitializeComponent() method.Everywhere I've looked has told me that the corresponding static constructor in VB is just:Shared Sub New()
but this method is never invoked. Am I creating my VB static constructor right? Is it likely something else that has nothing to do with my static constructor?
I am writing a code for a webapplication in vb.net. I am using a shared variable in the vb code.
Consider the static variable value is 3 for a user who hits the web application. Again when another user hits the same web application, whether the static variable will be 3 again or whether he will have a separate value for static variable for his session?
I have a large problem with inheritance in vb.net. The problem is the following:
I have 2 forms => frmBase and frmChild
In frmBase i want to create a method Called StartWorking() and i want frmChild to inherit this method.
But here is the tricky thing: when frmChild.StartWorking is called i would like the following => without calling MyBase.StartWorking()
I want frmBase.StartWorking() to be executed first and after a test in frmBase.StartWorking if blnValue is true then frmChild.StartWorking has to be activated. if blnValue is false that frmChild.StartWorking cannot be activated.
