Suppose you release the next version of your software, you will have to manually update your WIX files to remove obsolete files and add new files, etc.
My use case is as simple as "recursively add the files under /sample/path in the user target C:\Program Files\MyApp".
Is there a program that does this sort of automation?
For WiX v3 (and a free solution), look at heat.exe. If you have more advanced harvesting needs, there is a commercial option from FireGiant**.
** Disclaimer: I am the benevolent dictator of the WiX Toolset and CEO of FireGiant. We contribute to the open source project and provide commercial solutions around the project. Pick what works best for you.
If Heat doesn't meet your needs, you may want to look at Paraffin by John Robbins.
For Wix 2 there was a tool called Mallow that did this. It was freeware and I got the source somewhere. This functionality may also be available in Heat.exe at this point, but I am not sure.
It also seems some guys in the Wix community are experimenting with a sort of automatic scanner feature where you can put files in a pre-defined release location and new msi files are continually created - ala "continuous integration".
Are you looking to do this for a lot of packages, or just for one or a few ones? Let me know the scope and I can send you the Mallow code, or dig up links for the "continuous integration" oriented solutions.
You can use heat.exe as Rob stated already (i think he knows since he is the man behind), or you can write a simple harvester script, that evaluate the wix-script as pre-compile action of the wix-project. We used a vbscript for that since heat did not suit our problems, cause of different files, different directories, etc.
WixEdit has an import folder function that can grab the entire contents of a folder and turn it into Directory/Component/File nodes.
Related
I decompiled the dll that my app creates for publishing it and found out, that everything is easy to read. The app is not rocket science but I'd like to hide some things, e. g. there are constants that are called productionHourlyRate what no one should know.
I know, there are obfuscation softwares but they are expensive.
An easy way would be to rename all variables and methods before publication, e. g. productionHourlyRate -> v1. Is there a built in possibility to do (and undo) this in Visual Studio 2022. Of course, I could rename them one by one but this is not very comfortable.
Or: Is there a free obfuscator that makes dlls undecompilable? No matter which tool I read about, I always find comments like "I decompiled the obfuscated dll with xyz and received the whole source code.".
Many thanks, Philipp
Edit: It is a C#/.Net app (Blazor WebAssembly)
Since there was no answer to this question, there is probably no Visual Studio built in solution.
So, I created an Excel tool that renames alle class, method and variable names in the specified files. Please find it here.
Important:
Make sure, you run this obuscator only when using a version control tool. You CANNOT undo the obfuscation with this Excel tool.
Usage
Add file paths in worksheet "files".
Run macro "Obfuscate" to obfuscate class, method and variable names with "v1", "v2"…
Publish your app.
Undo the changes with your version control tool.
Once all files are manually listed, the obfuscation should only take a few seconds.
We have a product with more than 100 'pieces' most of which are optional 'plug-ins'. We would like a non-programmer to be able to make a "customized" installer on a per-customer/sale basis. Our ideal would be simply a single executable/msi with a folder structure from which files/folders could be deleted, then when run the installer would simply not offer features corresponding to the deleted bits.
A separate, but similar issue is that the developers of these plug-ins are not installation experts and we would prefer not to have to edit shared installer source to add/remove one from our build-set. We've been using the "synchronized folders" feature of Advanced Installer for this, but we would like a separately selectable feature for each plug-in.
Is there an installer tool-chain that can support such(or similar) behavior?
If so does anyone have tips on how to actually implement it using said tool?
I created such a tool stack at my last job. We did product line development with dozens of service families, hundreds of features, thousands of merge modules and tens of thousands of files in a typical installer.
Each merge module was authored using IsWiX and compiled using WiX. We then used WiX XML as an input to our build automation system to generate InstallShield installers. A service family would have an XML file to describe it's portion of the feature tree and it would all get emitted into an empty InstallShield project.
Finally a product XML file would describe the INSTALLDIR, UpgradeCode and other meta along with which features to consume. We built dozens and dozens of installers off this common base code.
It would take days to explain everything but that gives you the idea. For a simpler environment you could create a UI to generate WiX code and then compile it into an MSI.
But I don't know that I'd ever give this to a non-programmer. Creating installers is programming.
There is no tool that creates features at runtime in the MSI package, at least no MSI based tool. This complicates too much the installer logic, as you would need a very complex custom action that reads the contents of the folders found next to the installer and then generate entries in the following MSI tables: Files, Directory, Component, Feature, FeatureComponents. And then inter-connect all of this.
That is not something easy to do at all, and very error prone is tried by something how does not have extensive experience in building MSI packages.
have you considered/tried any non-MSI package builders?
I'm currently trying to make a download/install file for a CD, and I've never done this or written any type of coding before so I'm somewhat at a loss. When we last created an installer package (I wasn't employed yet) we used InstalShield, but that was decades ago, and we can't afford the 500$+ price to get it again.
Currently I'm trying to work off the old download package we have. There is the Windows Installer Package (made by InstalShield) called CD Cat v6.msi, and then another file called CDcatv6.exe (which launches a window for the customer to browse options) and then a file called Data.cab which has all the files for the entire catalog in it.
I was thinking perhaps I can just replace a lot of those files with the current information. Replace the CDcatv6.exe file with my v7.exe file (but change the name so its CDcatv6.exe) and then replace all the files in the Data.cab file with the current ones. But that's turning out to be a huge issue.
I did a bit of searching to learn what a .cab file was, and downloaded the Cab File Maker 2.0 (after quite a bit of searching!). I'm having a difficult time using it though, as it wants all the files that I put in it to make the .cab to be in .ddf format. I have no idea what that is, much less how to make it. I tried using 'save as' to do it, but since all the files I need are PDF's there's no option for it and I cant export the files to it either.
I tried looking at other ways that people made Cab files, but I don't know many of the file types or programs their talking about. I'm not a programmer by any means, but I have to learn quick I guess, so any information on how to do this will help greatly. Is it even possible to replace all the files seamlessly and have it work properly? Or is there an easier way to create a fill that the customer can click on and have it download to their desktop?
I don't think simple editing of Data.cab will work. There is installer logic stored in other InstallShield files. It could work if and only if the file set is the same, I mean no files changed its names, no new files added, no new registry entries required etc.
To create a CAB file, use cabarc.exe from Microsoft Windows SDK.
Creating a brand new installer may be a better option. Look at this tools for creating installers:
Advanced Installer
NSIS
WiX toolset (with tutorial)
You best solution is to use dark.exe (part of the WiX toolset).
This will enable to you decompile the MSI and CAB files, edit the installer source as XML and then recompile this into a new executable. Unfortunately this route is not for the faint of heart and what you save on price will cost you in time.
I'm curious how your company created an MSI decades ago, but Sasha is right about time and money trade-offs. However if you're working with Visual Studio, you might try the InstallShield Limited Edition for Visual Studio. It may have enough capabilities to suit your needs.
Thanks for pointing to CABARC, that looks exactly what i was looking for, due to information on:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/bb417343(v=msdn.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN#top
That make me look how to download it, but i found this post:
Where can I get the cabarc utility?
Where it explains CABARC may be obsolete and there is another utility called MAKECAB that cames with Windows 11, i had try it at command line and it is there.
Thanks a lot.
I've been looking at various different ways of making an installer (see How to create a robust, minimal installer for Windows? for details), and I've run into the same thing in a couple of them (WiX and the visual studio installer creator); there doesn't seem to be a way to say "When you build the installer, include every file matching c:\somefolder\*.xml".
I can go and select *.xml and add all the files that match to the project at once, but then if I add another .xml file to my program later, I'd need to go and add that to the installer myself.
Is this a core limitation of windows installer, that I can't just tell it "sort all the XML files in this folder out and don't bother me about them"?
WiX toolset contains an utility called Heat. It can generate the WiX authoring for you based on your needs. The output can be further transformed by XSL templates (-t switch).
Hope this helps.
InstallShield also has this ( see Dynamic File Linking ) but honestly I don't like this pattern in general. It's non-deterministic in nature. I speak from 14 years of experience when I say that if a file is added or removed from my application I want to explicitly add it or remove it from my applications installer. Any magic to automate this has always bitten me in that it takes what should have been a build time error and turns it into a run time error.
My best practice is to write some automation that compares what was available to be consume against what was consumed by the installer. The two lists must match 100% or otherwise fail the build. When the build fails you must choose to either add the file to the installer or cease to archive the file to the directory. With the right tooling, it's trivial to add a file to the installer and the result is 100% accuracy of developer intent being applied to the installer.
Is it a best practice to commit a .sln file to source control? When is it appropriate or inappropriate to do so?
Update
There were several good points made in the answers. Thanks for the responses!
I think it's clear from the other answers that solution files are useful and should be committed, even if they're not used for official builds. They're handy to have for anyone using Visual Studio features like Go To Definition/Declaration.
By default, they don't contain absolute paths or any other machine-specific artifacts. (Unfortunately, some add-in tools don't properly maintain this property, for instance, AMD CodeAnalyst.) If you're careful to use relative paths in your project files (both C++ and C#), they'll be machine-independent too.
Probably the more useful question is: what files should you exclude? Here's the content of my .gitignore file for my VS 2008 projects:
*.suo
*.user
*.ncb
Debug/
Release/
CodeAnalyst/
(The last entry is just for the AMD CodeAnalyst profiler.)
For VS 2010, you should also exclude the following:
ipch/
*.sdf
*.opensdf
Yes -- I think it's always appropriate. User specific settings are in other files.
Yes you should do this. A solution file contains only information about the overall structure of your solution. The information is global to the solution and is likely common to all developers in your project.
It doesn't contain any user specific settings.
You should definitely have it. Beside the reasons other people mentioned, it's needed to make one step build of the whole projects possible.
I generally agree that solution files should be checked in, however, at the company I work for we have done something different. We have a fairly large repository and developers work on different parts of the system from time to time. To support the way we work we would either have one big solution file or several smaller. Both of these have a few shortcomings and require manual work on the developers part. To avoid this, we have made a plug-in that handles all that.
The plug-in let each developer check out a subset of the source tree to work on simply by selecting the relevant projects from the repository. The plugin then generates a solution file and modifies project files on the fly for the given solution. It also handles references. In other words, all the developer has to do is to select the appropriate projects and then the necessary files are generated/modified. This also allows us to customize various other settings to ensure company standards.
Additionally we use the plug-in to support various check-in policies, which generally prevents users from submitting faulty/non-compliant code to the repository.
Yes, things you should commit are:
solution (*.sln),
project files,
all source files,
app config files
build scripts
Things you should not commit are:
solution user options (.suo) files,
build generated files (e.g. using a build script) [Edit:] - only if all necessary build scripts and tools are available under version control (to ensure builds are authentic in cvs history)
Regarding other automatically generated files, there is a separate thread.
Yes, it should be part of the source control.
When ever you add/remove projects from your application, .sln would get updated and it would be good to have it under source control. It would allow you to pull out your application code 2 versions back and directly do a build (if at all required).
Yes, you always want to include the .sln file, it includes the links to all the projects that are in the solution.
Under most circumstances, it's a good idea to commit .sln files to source control.
If your .sln files are generated by another tool (such as CMake) then it's probably inappropriate to put them into source control.
We do because it keeps everything in sync. All the necessary projects are located together, and no one has to worry about missing one. Our build server (Ant Hill Pro) also uses the sln to figure which projects to build for a release.
We usually put all of our solutions files in a solutions directory. This way we separate the solution from the code a little bit, and it's easier to pick out the project I need to work on.
The only case where you would even considder not storing it in source control would be if you had a large solution with many projects which was in source control, and you wanted to create a small solution with some of the projects from the main solution for some private transient requirement.
Yes - Everything used to generate your product should be in source control.
We keep or solution files in TFS Version Control. But since or main solution is really large, most developers have a personal solution containing only what they need. The main solution file is mostly used by the build server.
.slns are the only thing we haven't had problems with in tfs!