I'm glad it fixed it 🥳
Closing the issue. Feel free to create a new issue if you have further questions.
Create a new project with Suite, then copy the NuGet.Config file from this new project and replace it with the NuGet.Config file in your old project. If you have made changes to this file before, you may need to move your changes to the other file, otherwise, you may get build errors.
I'll be looking forward to seeing if it works.
Have a nice day.
Interesting. Does this problem also occur when you create a new project? Or is it just the case in this current project?
i am not able to bind both
Where exactly are you having trouble? Couldn't bind a property in the UI to the model?
Please, can you provide a log record, code, or minimal reproducible example of the problem, if any, so that I can assist you better?
You can override the DownloadAsync method in FileDescriptorController and update it as follows:
var fileDescriptor = await FileDescriptorAppService.GetAsync(id);
Response.Headers.Add("Content-Disposition", $"attachment;filename=\"{HttpUtility.UrlEncode(fileDescriptor.Name)}\""); // this has changed
Response.Headers.Add("Accept-Ranges", "bytes");
Response.ContentType = fileDescriptor.MimeType;
return await FileDescriptorAppService.DownloadAsync(id, token);
We solved the problem with HttpUtility.UrlEncode. But if you know of a better solution, please let us know.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I opened an issue.
See: https://github.com/abpframework/abp/issues/13995
Have a nice day!
An audit log action is typically a controller action or an application service method call during the web request. One audit log may contain multiple actions.
See: https://docs.abp.io/en/abp/latest/Audit-Logging?_ga=2.179751270.374253941.1662735671-1555045873.1662735669#audit-log-object
In other words, even if IsEnabledForGetRequests is false, more than one method can be called in POST(or etc.) requests and they are recorded in the AbpAuditLogActions table. We can understand the GET request from the MethodName according to the convention, but I don't believe this is the right approach for this situation. Maybe it will work more logically and properly to enable/disable AuditLogActionInfo completely.
What are your views on this? Would something like this meet your requirements?
Yes, you are right.
I'm treating this as a feature request and creating an internal issue. Let's take a closer look at what we can do.
Thanks for your understanding, have a nice day.
I'm treating this as a feature request. So I'm going to open an internal issue for it to change based on a setting.
However, you should know that there is no problem with changing the source code for such needs.
Could you please give more details?
Are we talking about the same issue as your issue here?