I want to append the installation folder of my program as value to the path variable of user and system variables.
I followed michaelmoo's instruction.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/21390793/9678802
The problem is that the existing value of path variable will be removed.
Digression: Adding to the Path involves some security risks, some performance issues, and can cause application interference - and probably a few other things. It is best avoided in general. It is a "known risk" avoided by deployment professionals - if they can help it.
The concept of AppPaths is a (partial) alternative to
updating the Path environment variable. It allows your application to
be started from the Start => Run dialog, but it does not work
from the command line.
Seems to not work from command prompts.
Warning: Ouch, that answer is very bad indeed (with apologies to the author who clearly tried to help others). That procedure should not be followed in any shape or form though! It is so dangerous that I have seen people sent out the door for far less. Wiping out a whole developer teams' environment path with a package deployment will cause drama - that you can be sure of. The warning really needs to be that strong in this case. I have seen it happen, and even by packages made by experienced professionals.
Built-In Support: As far as I am concerned, the correct answer from the above "thread" is this one. Windows Installer has built-in support for adding environment variable that takes care of all merging and update issues - and it even has rollback support - meaning your environment variable will be restored to its original state should the package installation fail. This built-in feature is a "must use" functionality.
Deployment Tool: So the built-in feature has to be used, but how when the tool does not support it? The best option is to get a "real deployment tool", especially since there are several further problems with the Visual Studio Installer Projects (Note: this is not pitching products, it is telling people about serious pitfalls that will cause real problems in almost all cases - what product you choose is up to you - obviously - but the VS Installer Project just isn't a complete solution).
WiX: Updating the Path variable using WiX is simple enough. And the documentation for the Environment element.
Orca: Though it is possible to "post-process" your compiled MSI and create the required entry in the Environment table, I would recommend that you use a proper tool instead that has been tested and designed to help you succeed in general. A comma wrong or a star wrong in the Environment table and you get completely wrong behavior.
Related
I'm looking of a DTSX file that I didn't make, trying to get an overview of how it works. But I've noticed that every time I open up an Execute SQL Task or File System Task it checks out the dtsx from TFS. I haven't changed anything, so why does it always check out the file?
Because the dtsx file is overly burdensome and mixes UI and data/programming elements in the same backing file? winces
Without seeing the specific file, what I had noticed back when I used version control systems that subscribed to the checkout/modify/checkin pattern is that things such as package configuration, expressions, etc may get re-evaluated as you open tasks which I assume the TFS modify daemon in VS detects the file could get dirty and so checks it out to help you.
You'll also notice that if you run the package, sometimes it gets checked out and marked as modified. Which is totally fun as you get to play: what was I doing before I left my desk? Did I actually make a change or was I just looking?
Not helping matters is that the save action from visual studio always triggers two changes: version build (which is a monotonically increasing number) and the corresponding version guid.
Not an answer, but I can commiserate with your experience. The answer likely lies in the engineering minds in Redmond and was never publicly documented.
Our application is deployed to the target machine with an msi file. All works nicely. Our tester has gone through his plan, and one of the tests requires deleting the application's configuration file. The application is designed to alert the user with a dialog on startup saying "missing config". However, what happens is that - somehow! - the software starts the installer again and retrieves the missing file from the msi! Which is nice, but not what we want. How do we disable that behaviour?
without going into much depth of the windows installer mechanics (if you interested in that there a plenty of articles about this), the shortcut of the software is probably advertised, which means the windows installer checks if everything is in its place before the software is started.
if you can edit the msi, make the shortcut non advertised.
if you can't, install it with DISABLEADVTSHORTCUTS
e.g. msiexec /i myMsi.msi DISABLEADVTSHORTCUTS=1
please note that this is only a quick (and dirty) workaround,
to fix this proper you need to understand the whole windows installer advertising (also called repair or self resiliency) mechanism.
but explaining all the causes and the mechanism of the repair is far beyond this answer and there are quite some articles and posts about that on the internet (and especially on MSDN and stackoverflow)
There is a more correct answer to this, and it is NOT DISABLEADVTSHORTCUTS. You set the component id to null in the MSI file to prevent repair of that individual file. See ComponentId comments here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa368007(v=vs.85).aspx
Edit the MSI file with Orca to delete the Componenty ID, and write an uninstall custom action to delete the file at uninstall if it's there.
In addition, that's a redundant test. Windows will restore that file for you if it's missing, so the idea that you need a test to notify that it's missing is pointless. The true test should be that Windows will restore the file if it's lost, and your app needs to do potentially nothing about the missing file.
You don't mention what tool you are using to make your MSI but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Visual Studio Deployment Projects (.VDRPOJ).
One of the (many) horrible things about this tool was that it fails to expose the foundational concept of components. Instead it makes every file a key file of it's own component and hides the existence of the component from you. I say 'was' because Microsoft killed this project type in VS. There are around 50k people complaining on UserVoice to bring this tool back and I'm guessing that 49,990 of them don't know what a key path is.
Windows Installer has a concept called the component rules and each component has a keypath. The keypath teaches MSI how to handle repair scenarios. But your tool has to allow you to be able to control this to make it work.
Windows Installer is functioning exactly the way it's supposed to function. You just aren't up to speed on what that is.
However, if you want to ignore Windows Installer best practices and continue using the tool you use today, the trick is to install the app.config file as a different file. Then have the application copy the file to the real file name on run. Windows Installer won't service what it didn't install.
Several answers have been provided that can work:
You can install the file with a blank guid. Then you need to remove it on uninstall using the RemoveFile feature. You will also run into issues if you want to replace it during an upgrade. Could be tricky at times.
You can disable the advertised shortcut(s), but this affects too much in my opinion.
Finally you can use my suggestion to install a separate non-advertised shortcut to use to launch the application. Such a shortcut bypasses the self-repair check. It may still be invoked by other means such as missing file associations, COM registration or similar, but those are exception states.
However, my preference is that an application can start without a config file present, if at all possible. I always suggest a good startup routine with "internal defaults" available. The startup routine should also degrade gracefully if faced with any file system access denied conditions.
Most importantly you should place this config file in the userprofile so you can generate the file on first launch for the user in question. It can even be copied from a read-only copy in the main installation directory.
When you generate a file from internal defaults and put it in a userprofile location, the file will have no interference with Windows Installer at all. The issues that results is how to clean up user data on uninstall. I discussed this with Stefan Kruger (MSI MVP) at one point, and I agree with his notion that user data is indeed user data and should not be automatically dealt with by your installer at all. Leave it installed, and clean it up via system administrator tools if necessary - for example logon scripts.
I was wondering if it was possible to intercept or disable different Visual Studio commands or features from an extension?
For instance, could you stop a user from accessing the File -> Open command? I'm trying to work on an extension that will help enforce some coding standards and as part of that I'd like to disable or intercept a few different things when users try to do them. For instance, maybe disabling the ability to edit project properties or something similar to stop users from checking in their local changes and breaking the build or messing up other team members.
Do hooks exist for this in the Extension API or are we stuck with the old Word document asking people to play nice?
You can, but I do want to echo Greg's comment before I give details: you are better off spending your time making a really awesome tool that developers can run to catch "bad problems" than playing whack-a-mole to disable commands. Disabling commands could be dangerous because there are often multiple commands that might do the same "bad" thing. Also, disabling might cause other parts of VS to destabilize. Using your example of project properties, write a tool that runs across your codebase and looks for project files that are "bad", and spits out a build warning. Have this run every time your developers hit build. That way they still get the near-real-time feedback, without having to make sure they have extensions installed. (plus, you can check that tool into your codebase to ensure everybody is synced)
That said, implementing a IVsRegisterPriorityCommandTarget might be the right option here. The performance ramifications can be significant, so you need to make sure your implementation is fast or else you'll slow down VS. If you return E_NOTSUPPORTED from the handlers, that will result in normal routing. Returning S_OK but not forwarding would block routing from happening.
Sorry if a similar question has been posed before. There are a lot of deployment questions but none seemed to address my problem.
Anyway. I'm working with asp.net, C# and using Visual Studio.
The Organization I'm working in is changing rapidly. There are a lot of projects coming in the pipeline that will require multiple code changes and iterative deployments over the next few months. While working, these changes are always 'on the forefront', so sometimes I have to code certain parts of the same program multiple times.
Since these projects are all staggered, I can't just make one sweeping change all at once; I have to deploy and redeploy the same program multiple times, using only the changes that are required for that deployment.
If this is confusing, here's a simple example:
Application is being used on an Intranet. This application calls our Database, using Driver A.
There are two environments, test and production.
Certain Stored procedures have to be called with parameters that register 'Test' to allow certain other applications to run even with bad data (for testing purposes).
When deploying applications, these stored procedures have to be modified, removing Test parameters
We have an Operating System upgrade, allowing us to move to a much faster Driver B, but requires changes to be made to the code to use Driver B.
So that's two wholly different deployments where some code must be changed for Deployment 1 and other code must be changed for Deployment 2.
Currently I'm just using notepad for an overall change list, regular debugging break points and a multitude of in-code comments, and then I manually slog through the code to make sure that everything is changed. With hundreds of thousands of lines of code over multiple files, classes, objects, etc. this gets pretty tedious, as well as there being a good chance of missing something (causing it to break) or pushing wrong changes (causing it to either break or allow bad data).
Is there a tool that could be used to help in this situation? Preferably one that I can discern what needs to change for Deployment A and what needs to change for Deployment B? I'm also open to hearing other schools of thought as well (tips are definitely accepted!)
Sure, I understand your problem.
I would suggest a couple of things
Installers : Why don't you think of installers, there are loads of installers i.e Install shield, Wix, MSI installer.
These installers will give you flexibilty to update files which you need to update, i.e. Full Control.
But you need to choose the best of them, I have worked around MSI and Wix a lot, so I know this can sort your problem, however its your call.
Publish : I haven't played around much with this, I have just done website publish. However I know it does wonders, so try it also.
I need to create an install for my app that executes the following actions:
Copies files
Writes registry settings
Registers a windows service
Writes an XML app.config file (based on user supplied info during install--a connection string)
Executes SQL scripts against a remote database (connection info obtained in #4)
Installs and registers a COM dll
Adds entry to Control Panel>Add/Remove programs for uninstall
I don't need any fancy logic to allow the user to customize these steps--I can hard-code them with user-supplied info injected where appropriate.
I looked at Wix but found the documentation and examples don't line up well with recent releases.
I also looked at NSIS but found support for writing XML to be too limited (the plugin for this can only handle strings up to 64 bytes).
I initially brushed off the VS2005 built in Setup project as incapable of handling these tasks but I'm ready to reconsider after stumbling with what I thought were better options.
Any suggestions?
I would still recommend looking into WiX a bit more. We use it to do everything but #6 on that list and while there is a small learning curve. We've been using WiX v3 for almost 3 years, and I haven't found too many places where the docs/tutorial is that far out of place. And usually where it is its because they cleaned up the syntax and made it better.
Also, as of the next release of Visual Studio (2010/Rosario) WiX is being build directly into Visual Studio, I'm not sure if in parallel with the current Setup Projects or replacing them completely.
A Visual Studio Installer project can do whatever custom code you want; wouldn't see why any of your requirements would be a problem.
I have used Visual Studio (2005) and Wise and can recommend both. You didn't mention if the tool had to be free, and if so that rules out Wise. Nevertheless Wise has a dead easy learning curve and is very powerful and well documented. I have had a few weird things happen to me with Visual Studio. One time I had to delete my project and start over (possibly due to stupidity on my part - never figured it out), but overall I have been using it for a couple years at my current job and it works for me.
You can use just Visual Studio and Windows without commercial tools to achieve what you need.
First, check out the answer to create a single installer file.
Then, you can research how to create a Custom Action class that can perform registry, read/write files and register COM dll's separately.