|
Hi,
I am trying to check where user group number 7 is logged in. If they are, then a certain Field mandatory. When I click on save, this procedure is not even running. I have been trying to fix this code since December but I can't find the problem. Please let me know if you can.
Here's the code:
The VB Script
Protected Sub CheckTimeEstimate(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As ServerValidateEventArgs)
Dim blDeveloper As Boolean
Dim objAccess As clsAccess
objAccess = New clsAccess
blDeveloper = objAccess.checkHasRight(System.Convert.ToInt32(Session("UserID")), "7")
If blDeveloper = True Then
If Len(Me.txtTimeEstimate.Text) > 0 Then
e.IsValid = True
Else
e.IsValid = False
End If
End If
End Sub
The Validator
<<asp:customvalidator id="cstTimeEstimate" runat="server" forecolor="#7C1E3F" display="Dynamic" controltovalidate="txtTimeEstimate"
="" errormessage="<Img border=0 width='10px' height='10px' src='Images/Star.gif'>" tooltip="This field is Required!" <b="">OnServerValidate="CheckTimeEstimate">
Ignore the double angled brackets at the start of the validator, I did that so the page will display it.
-- modified at 10:41 Tuesday 9th January, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Dayekh wrote: I have been trying to fix this code since December but I can't find the problem.
What problem are you having that you can't find? That would be helpful.
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry .. I modified my post after realising what you pointed out. Here's what I intend for the code to do:
1 - I logon as Developer(User Group).
2 - I attempt to store a record while 'Time Estimate' field is empty.
3 - The Subroutine fires up and checks the ID of the user. If the User is a Developer(in this case 7), the variable blDeveloper is True, and according to my code, the validator will invalidate the developer's request.
The whole point is so that the 'Time Estimate' field is Mandatory for Developer User Group but is not mandatory for others.
Currently, when I try to add a record, the subroutine is not even running. That is the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I found the problem. The validator is not attempting to validate the Textbox because the text box is empty.
How can I get the validator to ignore the fact that it's empty?
|
|
|
|
|
try to place a required field validator first
|
|
|
|
|
Dear CPians,
I want to add a new UserControl to my WebProject. The problem is that I need it be in a way that recompilation is not required. Any ideas?
Thanking you in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would recompilation be a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Recompilation is a problem for many reasons.
When recompiling, the application restarts, hence sessions are lost.
I want to be able to make a UserControl without having the source code of the entire solution.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
You are developing on a production server??  
|
|
|
|
|
Well, even if I am, it would be great if you had any ideas about my actuall question rather that ranting around other issues.
I shall rephrase in order to help you.
Suppose that that you want to develop a reusable component, like a Custom Control but for reasons X, Y or Z you actually want it to be a UserControl and not a WebControl. Is there a way to deploy a UserControl in a way you would deploy a WebControl?
Please, dont ask me why wouldn't I develop a WebControl at the first place. Lets suppose that you have the reason.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
theJazzyBrain wrote: rather that ranting around other issues.
I'm not ranting. I'm stating that there are no valid reasons to avoid recompilation. The real problem is not the UserControl, but the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
That is true,
but suppose that changing the envirnment is out of the question. How would you come around such a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Dear All
I created a project with full exception handling (Try, Catch) in all subs and functions, I know that this will affect the performance negatively but i'm in the testing phase and exception handling will be removed for the release
My question is: is there a way to keep the exception handling statements and restrict them to the debug mode and step over them in realease mode without having to keep two seperate copies for debug and release?
I was told that this was available in Visual Studio 6 so there must be something like it in VS 2003
Thanx in advance for help
Best Regards
3ala2 
|
|
|
|
|
#if DEBUG
but it's not recommended.
|
|
|
|
|
ednrgc wrote: but it's not recommended.
And why is that?
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Because the try/catch/finally blocks should be used throughout, not just in debug mode. The performance hit is not as great as some people expect. Even if it's inside a multi-iteration loop, you may be able to move the try block outside the loop.
|
|
|
|
|
Your post seemed to imply #if DEBUG was not recommended
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Oops  Sorry for my lack of articulation. Point well taken.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a really bad idea to have try/catch functionality in your debug build and not in your release build. The code execution in the release will not be the same as the debug version. If you catch an error in the debug version, the release version should be able to cope with it as well.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll second Pete, exception handling is not just for debug.
If you make use of the Exception Handling in the Enterprise Library you can use the config file to adjust how the exceptions may be handled in either release or debug, without recompiling the app.
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
I should add that the performance of try/catch/finally is not as bad as people seem to think. The overhead really occurs when an error happens.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
Still no1 answered
I was asking for setting
I guess that means that this is not avaialbel in .net 2003 
Thanx Every1
Best Regards
3ala2 
|
|
|
|
|
just3ala2 wrote: Still no1 answered
Errm. No, lots of people answered. They just didn't give you the answer that you wanted.
What you were talking about was the TRY/CATCH macros in Visual C++. These were compiled out of release builds because they effectively mapped in as:
#ifdef DEBUG
try
{
#endif
and so on. Now, as has been stated earlier, it is a bad idea to have debug code that does one thing and release code that does another. If you have an exception, you need to catch it and deal with it.
What you did wrong was to design your application to have try/catch in every method. This is normally bad design. Consider the following sample:
public void SetMyValue(string value)
{
try
{
_myValue = value;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
What exception are you going to get here?
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
How i can send class between to website like client and server ?
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any way to call a web service without making a web reference in your project or generating proxy classes using wsdl.exe? The project I am working on involves calling a number of web services listed in the appsettings section of the web.config. The app will eventually test these web services for responsiveness. One of the requirements is that it should be configurable from the web.config and should not have to be recompiled upon adding a new web service. I googled a few hours yesterday with little results. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Scott Stocker
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
