Activities of "roberto.fiocchi@mcsi.it"

Hi,

Any news on this topic,? we need to plan next objectives so we need an answer.

You can report all your ABP-related issues on this platform.
Other platforms are for open-source users. We read all these posts and take necessary actions.

---

PS: You can still use the following platforms to find a community-supported solution.

• https://github.com/abpframework/abp
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/abp-framework
• https://discord.gg/abp

Hi @alper, When you say, “We read all these posts and take necessary actions.” does this mean if my previous posts were read, and no action was taken, they were rejected or what?

Thanks

Ok, thanks for the help!

We will await for further news on this.

We have the Team license. Since the source code for the account module is already in the license, shouldn't the identity module source code be also available since they are closely connected?

Isn't Github for non commercial ABP though? If so, things that apply to all of ABP probably should go there but stuff involving ABP Suite, ABP Studio, commercial modules etc should go in here? This should however still be clarified in the OP, especially as I just noticed there is a similar thread here for ABP Suite as well so it is a bit confusin

There is also a Github with private repository for ABP Commercial. When we write here, sometimes, an Issue is opened in private Github, but we have no vision of work or planning. We never understand what the ABP team is working and if all our requests have been taken into consideration and, if yes, when they are implemented.

In Aspnetzero, buying the license, you are included in the private Github because you have the right to see the source code of the whole application.

In ABP Commercial, it would be nice if ABP Team could invite us as stakeholder (See Devops -Supported access levels) or users limited to seeing the Issue. (See GitHub - Creating an issues-only repository)

Because the templates are not yet perfect and sometimes contain errors, I had to customize them. When a new version is released, it is relatively time-consuming to find out whether I can switch back to the original template, whether I have to continue using my modified template or whether I should even perform a merge.

Several possible solutions come to mind:

• Easy to implement and already helpful would be to have another button "Show default". Currently you have to select "Revert customization" to see the default.
  
• Maybe it would also be a solution to store the original file in the same directory with a different file extension (.suite/customized-templates/Frontend.Blazor.Page.Item.razor.original.txt), then you would be able to see very well in Git whether changes have been made in the original (new version) and you would also have the possibility to make a diff with your own changes.
• The "deluxe version" would be if you were to implement a merge tool with which we could update to a new version ;-)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have created an internal issue for this feature request.

I would add that we would need a button like "download Zip with all template"

Is this feature going to be implemented soon? Everytime i update the framework i loose time copying the new templates to see what has changed.

hi,

It works thanks.

hi,

Can you please provide us with the code needed to make this behavior change?

Also, quoting the documentation:

In some cases, you may want to save a few properties but ignore all others. Writing [DisableAuditing] for all the other properties would be tedious. In such cases, use [Audited] only for the desired properties and mark the entity with the [DisableAuditing] attribute

I would expect that if I disable auditing on the entity and enable auditing only on a property I should have a record in AuditingStore only if the property has changed.

If this is not a bug for you then I am going to ask you to update the documentation to better clarify how it works.

Thanks.

Hi,

Can you elaborate more? Both these concept are under "Audit Logging" in the documentation (https://docs.abp.io/en/abp/latest/Audit-Logging)

Looking through the Database the reason for the blank record is that it created a record for the table "AbpEntityChanges" but no record for the "AbpEntityPropertyChanges" (since there were no changes to the audited properties).

I also tried inverting the data annotation like it is explained in the documentation but the behavior stays the same.

If there were no changes to the audited property of the entity (no "AbpEntityPropertyChanges" records created) it would be useful if it did not create a record for the "AbpEntityChanges" table.

I also had a similar problem in the scenario where I need to have the ability to log in locally and the ability to login via Active Directory active, but a user cannot "self" register. Only an administrator can create accounts and without a created account a user cannot log in.

See my post https://support.abp.io/QA/Questions/6843/External-Provider-login-is-able-to-register-a-user-even-if-self-register-setting-is-disabled

So I also had to override the methods, but I think the correct solution is to have a flag that enables/disables the creation of a local user (self registration) and a flag that enables/disables registration from External Provider (automatic external registration)

Is it possible to have this feature?

Thanks