[Mono-dev] State of aspnetwebstack on mono

[Mike Morano]

Miguel,

I can not apologize enough for the issue you point out in regards to the
poisoned patch, I had no idea it was sourced from MS.  I have been a big
mono fan since 2003, and certainly was not trying to jeopardize mono.  As I
identified in my commit message, I found that from another repo on github
when I was trying to see if anyone had already implemented this (similar to
how I found PR874 which was a pre-requisite), though will never do that
again.

Are the files outside of the files listed in the other repo acceptable
(everything except MembershipPasswordAttribute.cs)?

Sorry,
Mike



On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at xamarin.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> PR874 - from Chris Carroll with a few properties implemented around routes
>>
>
> While the properties were added, they are not actually used for anything,
> this looks bogus.
>
> The tests basically show that setting a boolean property back and forth is
> set, but likely what needs to be tested is the other methods it affects.
>
> The point of these properties is to alter the behavior of the route
> collection.
>
>
>> PR1163 - from AerisG222 which includes a few changes around Unvalidated
>> parameters and some other bits
>>
>
> This patch is poisoned.
>
> There were a couple of elements that looked very suspicious, like this bit
> (which also, does not follow the Mono coding guidelines):
>
> 		int? _minRequiredPasswordLength;
> 		int? _minRequiredNonAlphanumericCharacters;
> 		string _passwordStrengthRegularExpression;
>
> 		readonly string _minRequiredPasswordLengthError = "{0} must have at least {1} characters";
> 		readonly string _minNonAlphanumericCharactersError = "{0} must have at least {1} special characters";
> 		readonly string _passwordStrengthError = "{0} is weak";
>
>
> What are the chances of getting every internal method name to match the
> one in .NET I asked myself?   Close to zero.   So this was clearly
> decompiled and submitted.
>
> Rejected.  Someone *else* that has not worked on that code will have to
> rewrite this, it is unacceptable to have people contribute decompiled code.
>
> PR1349 - From me regarding MachineKey.Protect methods
>>
>
> Added a comment, looks like it could go in, but we need tests for the
> Unprotect path.
>
> And I would like those to be tested against Windows as well.
>
>
>> PR1353 - From me regarding ReadEntityBodyMode (doesn't actually work,
>> just the interface)
>>
>
> Simple, merged.
>
>
>> PR1354 - From me regarding Request.Abort
>>
>
> Simple, merged.
>
> Miguel.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/attachments/20141020/6572240c/attachment-0001.html>