Moq should document it?
-
From the CP newsletter Steven Giesel[^] Moq added an external call to a website during the build. Most topics I have found in google suggests that it was added without announcement. And probably no documentation either. To me seems like if they want to get paid then they should make it into an actual product rather than attempting to slip something hidden in. I would expect this to be be in the license. If not then where else should be be documented? Also seems borderline as to whether it should be added to a maintenance release (4.2) version versus a new release (5.0) even if that is the only change.
-
From the CP newsletter Steven Giesel[^] Moq added an external call to a website during the build. Most topics I have found in google suggests that it was added without announcement. And probably no documentation either. To me seems like if they want to get paid then they should make it into an actual product rather than attempting to slip something hidden in. I would expect this to be be in the license. If not then where else should be be documented? Also seems borderline as to whether it should be added to a maintenance release (4.2) version versus a new release (5.0) even if that is the only change.
$$
-
From the CP newsletter Steven Giesel[^] Moq added an external call to a website during the build. Most topics I have found in google suggests that it was added without announcement. And probably no documentation either. To me seems like if they want to get paid then they should make it into an actual product rather than attempting to slip something hidden in. I would expect this to be be in the license. If not then where else should be be documented? Also seems borderline as to whether it should be added to a maintenance release (4.2) version versus a new release (5.0) even if that is the only change.
The advice is to not update or drop Moq altogether as it's currently a privacy risk.
jschell wrote:
I would expect this to be be in the license. If not then where else should be be documented?
What you'd expect or how it should be is not always as it is. At this point it seems the maker of Moq is mocking his userbase and knowingly and willingly bricking his product.
jschell wrote:
Also seems borderline as to whether it should be added to a maintenance release (4.2) version versus a new release (5.0) even if that is the only change.
Definitely a major update as it brings new and, in a way, breaking "functionality" to the library.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
From the CP newsletter Steven Giesel[^] Moq added an external call to a website during the build. Most topics I have found in google suggests that it was added without announcement. And probably no documentation either. To me seems like if they want to get paid then they should make it into an actual product rather than attempting to slip something hidden in. I would expect this to be be in the license. If not then where else should be be documented? Also seems borderline as to whether it should be added to a maintenance release (4.2) version versus a new release (5.0) even if that is the only change.
The difference between push and pull updates. My Windows "auto update" is turned off. I run it when it's been quiet in the wild for a while. I believe you will find things "gracefully degrading" over time as the cloud seeks to absorb all. The Blob comes to mind. [The Blob - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Blob)
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
