|
Chris Maunder wrote: My new favourite error:
Ewww. And I suppose none of the "I solved it" posts worked?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
No - not one. [Update: I did find one that did - but by coincidence]
It's all System.Net.Http: If you add a reference to a framework assembly then it wants 4.1.1.1, but it can't find 4.1.1.1 in the framework assemblies so fails. I can, however, copy a version of System.Net.Http.dll into the directory and get it working for a Web Forms app.
However, on an MVC app that isn't working. It wants 4.2.0.0 when I've referenced 4.1.1.1, so I bite the bullet and add the Nuget ref to 4.2.0.0 and then it complains it can't find 4.1.1.1. I adjust the redirection in web.config so they all point to 4.2.0.0 (even though VS keeps wanting to set it as 4.1.1.1) and then I get the "can't resolve assembly". No version number now - just "can't find anything that works".
So my final workaround is
<dependentAssembly>
<assemblyIdentity name="System.Net.Http" publicKeyToken="b03f5f7f11d50a3a" culture="neutral" />
<bindingRedirect oldVersion="0.0.0.0-4.2.0.0" newVersion="4.0.0.0" />
</dependentAssembly>
which is what someone else has also found: System.Net.Http package 4.3.2 - redirect to 4.2.0.0, assembly loading failure · Issue #22781[^]
Evidently: Quote: Looks like Visual Studio 2017 15.3 is shipping with a .NET 4.6.x System.Net.Http.dll with internal assembly version 4.2.0 and the latest Nuget Package assembly version is 4.1.1 for NetFX.
And the best bit?
Unless you clean out the bin completely before each rebuild (or, it seems, glancing away for 10 seconds) you get
Could not load file or assembly 'netfx.force.conflicts'
Which is evidently impossible but everyone's getting it.
A complete Charlie Foxtrot. I'm beyond pissed off at such a fundamental showstopper.
cheers
Chris Maunder
modified 18-Aug-17 17:23pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The way Microsoft is behaving these days, I am sure they will come out with a SaaS solution, which you can get from Microsoft Azure, just make sure you have a valid subscription. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I'm sorry I haven't been posting during the day, except well new job, don't want the standard to slip just yet. It is kinda cool, I get to break things and test them to see if they work. Also is it a good sign I have been invited to the Christmas do (they send invites in August?). I can look just not post at the moment...why was Mike Martin (or Mike Farrrkking Hunt as he was earlier) on a tirade? so body spilt his ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif) ???
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonWork wrote: why was Mike Martin (or Mike Farrrkking Hunt as he was earlier) on a tirade?
When is he not? 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonWork wrote: Mike Martin
It's faarrrkkkking Mick!
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats! But don't they miss you at the pub?
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
|
There you go, you screwed up and paid your tab on your way out the last time. If you would have left it stand, they would miss you. A lot.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
True, that taught me not bury the bodies too deep next time! Quote: f you would have left it stand, they would miss you. A lot.
It would have been fun to do three rounds with the Texan ex-marine and finished the conversation with "not my problem, get the muppet who wrote it to sort it!" 
|
|
|
|
|
Why do hot dog buns come in packs of 8, but hot dogs come in packs of 10??
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
you're not buying enough at a time. you're supposed to buy four packs of hot dogs and five packs of buns.
|
|
|
|
|
I knew it had to be some sort of conspiracy
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Because some people, like me, like to go bun-less.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Commando weinies? 
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
This has been explained elsewhere.
Buns are less resilient than the hot dogs so it is often the case that a bun becomes soggy or ripped.
There are actuarial tables that show for every 8 hot dogs you need 10 buns because of loss.
Originally the bun-makers did this to be nice and then they lobbied and got a law put into place that states, Quote: "if consumer suffers no loss of bunnage, said consumer must throw away 2 extra buns".
You are illegally eating those extra buns and will be reported, post haste.
|
|
|
|
|
Hah, that sounds more like an American, no ARTE stuff
|
|
|
|
|
This question has already been answered  at the end of Bulletproof Monk[^]
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Don't Hot Dogs and Hot Dog Buns Come in Packs of Equal Number? - YouTube[^]
The TLDW: It has to do with tradition. Meat is generally sold by the pound (1.6oz dog, 1lb total = 10 dogs per pack). Bread pans generally come in multiples of 4 by tradition. So unless the meat industry changes its standard or the bread industry spends a ton of money making new equipment, this is just how it is.
|
|
|
|
|
As a spot check of your rant, I went to tesco.com (that's what popped into my head) and searched for "hot dog"
For the result search returned, the results are as followed
Number of dogs in pack:
8/8/6/6/6/8/10/5/8/10/4/8/10/w/w/w/w/w/w/w/w
w= sold by weight, number of dogs not specified
For the buns, these were:
6/6/6/4
So the only conclusion I can establish is: Hot dog packs typically contain more dogs than bun packs contain buns, and 8 Hot Dogs appears to be the common pack size. If it more common for the US pack size to be 10, this might be the source of the obesity problem, as someone will eat those extra 2, "as it would be a shame to waste them".
|
|
|
|
|
So, it's possible to regurgitate (food).
However, there's apparently no word, gurgitate.
Looking into this further (if I didn't, one of you would have) I found that there's a Latin root, gurgis (surprise!). However - deep contemplation of the meaning of said root, I realize the word should properly be ungurgitate.
This kind of misguided lexicographical disinformation makes me nauseous.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: So, it's possible to regurgitate (food).
However, there's apparently no word, gurgitate.
This is gonna bother me for a couple of days...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Well - it really should be ungurgitate - unless you eat the same stuff, again. Then, and only then, does it make sense. Regurgitate covers the return trip IN.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
