Also some fun takeaways: it also makes external calls to azure to load configuration and stays silent after updating for 2 weeks before showing warnings.

Moq is unusable. Needs to be forked or repoaced. Time to switch to NSubstitute.

  • Dranadia@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Holy shit. This is so bad. That’s my entire September gone… I actually fought internally for my company to donate to this and a couple of other projects, but I guess this one is off the donation list at this point.

  • rookeh@geddit.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Sounds like the dev was unsatisfied with the low sponsorship numbers on his project, which when you consider how many devs only ever interact with Moq via the package manager or command line might be a fair complaint…but the decision to just start harvesting user data like a lowlife as an alternative source of income is some galaxy brain shit.

    It’s not like this would even be sustainable. What did he think was going to happen, devs would just blindly accept a new shady looking package appearing in their dependency stack with no further investigation?

    As a result of this stupidity Moq will now be on the shit-list of every corporation using .NET, especially those based in Europe due to GDPR implications.

  • TheLinuxGuy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    This is not the first time it happens with Dotnet Open Source packages, there are some pretty funky things going on namely:

    Imagesharp (They re-license from Apache 2 to something like Community/Commercial licenses and threw a huge fit over it)

    Fody (It expects the software contributors of Fody to be a patron.)

    • TheCee@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      It expects the software contributors of Fody to be a patron.

      As in, you can only contribute source code if you also pay in money?

        • TheCee@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Interesting, thanks. Well, that’s kind of a good reason, except maybe they should have been more upfront about it.

          • TheLinuxGuy@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think it’s asinine to ask the developer who contribute to your project, literally taking the time of the day writing the code and submit PR to your project, to pay money to you.

            I wouldn’t even bother contributing to the project at that point.

  • Hector_McG@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I knew that software supply chain dependency poisoning was increasing becoming a problem with open source, I just didn’t expect it to be from the original creator.