I am trying to setup sanity in a Svelte & Routify project. was wondering if having an entire thing for sanity is necessary, I know you can publish the studio to .sanity.io, wondering why isn't everything online in the first place and not somethings local
Developing your studio locally allows you to make and test incremental changes. Other developers on your team can work from their own local studios and make their own changes as well. The deployed studio might be the tool used by members of your team who aren't developing the studio itself but are accessing or editing the content. They can work from that studio without seeing (potentially breaking) changes as they're being made, which would be the case if everything was edited online.
If you're familiar with how git works, you can think of a repo like you might have on GitHub. You can work on your repo locally—saving as you go by committing. No one else on your team can see these changes and they don't impact the remote repo. That's your local studio. Once you push your commits to GitHub, they're accessible to the rest of your team. That's your deployed studio.
Related
I have create a sample ASP.NET 5 application (pretty much the example one from New Solution), and pushed it to GIT hosted on Visual Studio Team Services (former Visual Studio Online). I want to set up continuous integration to Azure Web App (former Azure Web Site). I have tried to set it up from Azure portal itself, it did create a new build definition, but it fails to build ASP.NET 5. I have found a guide how to do this, but it never really worked for me, I get errors like this e.g.
Error parsing solution file at C:\a\1\s\Frontend\src\Frontend\Frontend.xproj: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.
Predefined type 'System.Void' is not defined or imported
Another problem is that it seems it really takes a lot of time to install dnvm, get packages, etc. So all in all it's a pain to make it work.
So are there real alternatives for that or more importantly is Microsoft is planning to implement something like a Build ASP.NET 5, Deploy ASP.NET to Azure and such to make it easy as I suppose it's easy with the current ASP.NET 4 apps. I really hope that it will be an option soon since it's quite impossible to work with current build system.
For "System.Void" issue, please check the runtime version in "global.json" file and make sure it is consistent with the dependencies in "project.json" file.
For dnvm install issue, since AspNet5 runtime environment isn't installed on VSTS Hosted Build Agent for now and the different users may use different runtime versions, it requires the user to add a "PreBuild" PowerShell step to read the runtime version in "global.json" file and then install it. If you can make sure that you will always only use one version (For example: 1.0.0-rc1-update1), you can deploy your own build agent and install "1.0.0-rc1-update1" on it, then you can skip the dnvm installation during the build process.
Take a look on http://riffer.eu/wordpress/?p=112. There I have a solution vor asp.net core RC_1.
Amazingly you need only two powershell scripts - there is no compiling / visual studio necessary.
I created a simple application in VB.net in Visual Studio 2013.
It's not a website or a web app, it's just a simple Calculator, I think I created it as a Windows Forms Application.
When I build the application in release mode, it builds and runs properly.
It puts the executable it built in: Documents\Visual Studio 2013\Projects\DataCalculator\DataCalculator\bin\Release
I can just send that executable alone to someone and the program works fine. So what is the purpose of all the other files?
Furthermore, there is a Publish button in the Build menu of VS2013. What does publishing the program do that the the release doesn't?
Also, when I click the publish button it asks me how the user will install the application. What if I don't want them to install it, I just want it to run from a simple click of the executable. So what is the purpose of publishing?
If by "all the other files" you mean .application, .manifest, .pdb, etc., they all have uses in various contexts. If your calculator is stand-alone, then it will only require the .NET Framework version you used to create it installed and the .exe itself.
I have used the Publish feature a few times - at a previous company - it's useful for 'transparent updates' to users. For example, the tools I created were published to a shared drive on the server along with the associated "other files". The users then installed the tool from the shared drive by clicking on the setup/install version, which creates a shortcut on their start menu/desktop/wherever. The beauty of this particular method, is that you can configure the application to automatically update when it is run; so I continuously improved the tools and every time a user ran one, it copied the newer exe to their PC and ran that, without any further updates/reinstalls from their perspective.
It worked quite well for small engineering tools, but I'm sure with larger/more complex applications with databases and backward-compatibility to worry about, it could cause headaches in many situations.
Release will only create an .EXE Application file which is executable in supported platforms, but database must be separately copied . where as publish will create a setup file along with database and the sub folders inside the project folder. It helps you to install your application in any computer which meets the requirements.
Click to refer Advantages and procedure for publish http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/ms233806(v=vs.100).aspx
My company uses TFS 2010 to deploy our web apps from our local environment to our development environment. Here's the compiled output in my local directory for one of our vended web apps, ProGet, (http://inedo.com/proget/overview) in question that isn't deploying correctly. I expect all of what I see below to deploy to our development server:
Here's my .xaml build file:
Finally, here's my solution in Visual Studio:
When I queue the build, this is what's built out to our development server - notice it's missing a bunch of files/folders, but it does include "Resources" and "bin" and web.config:
This app is a vended application, ProGet, an already developed corporate Nuget repository that we purchased a source code license for. Does anyone have any ideas what I might be doing wrong?
EDIT
Here's a screenshot of my local IIS and the window to the right is a result of right clicking the website and choosing "Explore". Notice the *.cs files. Weird they don't compile down.
The Default Build Template (DefaultTemplate.xaml) should output the same files you get when you compile locally.
However, from your screenshots it looks like you are using a custom build template xxxx_DeploymentProcess.xaml that is obviously doing something different with how it outputs the build files. There is no way for us (stackoverflow community) to know what your custom build process is doing.
You could try switching back to the default template, and we'd be able to help you then. But, there's a good chance that you are using a custom build template for a reason, and you might not want to eliminate it before you know what it's doing.
Our main website is a collection of 10 separate ASP.NET projects and applications. At the moment, to do a complete deployment onto a fresh server involves running ten separate msdeploy jobs; each application is built, configured (using config transforms) and packaged, but we don't have any solution for deploying all the packages as a single operation.
I can see several possibilities that might work in this scenario, but would love to hear from anybody who has succeeded - or failed - in setting up something similar:
A folder full of packages and deploy.cmd scripts, with a "master script" that will call each individual app script in turn and deploy that app to the target server.
Using a staging server where we deploy the latest build of each package from TeamCity using the production configuration, but then use msdeploy to capture that server into a single enormous msdeploy ZIP package, which is then deployed onto each production server as a single msdeploy step.
Creating a single, enormous Visual Studio solution that references EVERY project in our codebase (perhaps via svn:externals?), compiles and cross-references them ALL, and hence supports using a single msbuild job to create a huge monolithic package containing our entire codebase, built from the latest revision in source control and configured for the target environment.
I've studied Troy Hunt's excellent "You're Deploying it Wrong" series, and Scott Hanselman's "Web Deployment Made Awesome" article, but I think I'm looking for something a step beyond either of these approaches that incorporates multiple projects and applications without necessarily building them from source in a single step - any ideas?
We had a very similar scenario in our company, and we created an installation package using WIX. Our config transform happens at installation time, so now we create a single build, then deploy that to each server via an MSI install package. WIX is very flexible, but also has a steep learning curve. We modify our configs using our own custom action, but it could be done other ways.
We use Team Foundation Server and MSBuild to do our builds. This is pretty straight forward, but did take some work to set up correctly with as many projects and solutions as we had.
Other options we looked into, and even tried were:
InstallShield - Not flexible enough.
Writing our own C# Install - WIX already thought of everything we
were trying to accomplish so why reinvent the wheel?
Just saying to heck with it all and installing things manually - 2 or
3 months of development time in WIX and MSBuild have easily paid for
the hours we would have spent of the last year doing things manually.
I think the deployment tools built into Visual Studio were designed for a single application with just a few deployments. It sounds like you need external tools, and development effort, to get your deployments quicker, and eliminate the need for doing things manually. That's why we invested in the above solution, and it has really paid off.
I'll pick Installshield.
Installshield latest versions support creating webdeploy packages.
You can define the IIS configurations for all apps in a single project and create releases if you want to create packages by separate or one single release for all web apps.
Installshield project has an object model where you can automate basically every task from build scripts, also the projects are simple xml files that you can also modify in automation scripts if required
Developers can modify update WixXML projects by separate and you can add those projects builds as merge modules to your installshield projects through your build scripts with some little tweaks to the installshield project xml (at least in 2011 version, this part is not supported by installshield but can be done)
You don't even need to modify Visual Studio Projects for groups of web apps that follow a same pattern, neither manually modify your installshield project to add new web apps for these cases, you can create packages for new web apps without intervention setting one time your build scripts for the installshield project automation task based on the root VS build output
Generally when I use ClickOnce when I build a VB.NET program but it has a few downsides. I've never really used anything else, so I'm not sure
what my options are.
Downsides to ClickOnce:
Consists of multiple files - Seems easier to distribute one file than manageing a bunch of file and the downloader to download those files.
You have to build it again for CD installations (for when the end user dosn't have internet)
Program does not end up in Program Files - It ends up hidden away in some application catch folder, making it much harder to shortcut to.
Pros to ClickOnce:
It works. Magically. And it's built
into VisualStudio 2008 express.
Makes it easy to upgrade the
application.
Does Windows Installer do these things as well? I know it dosen't have any of the ClickOnce cons, but It would be nice to know if it also has the ClickOnce pros.
Update:
I ended up using Wix 2 (Wix 3 was available but at the time I did the project, no one had a competent tutorial). It was nice because it supported the three things I (eventually) needed. An optional start-up-with-windows shortcut, a start-up-when-the-installer-is-done option, and three paragraphs of text that my boss thinks will keep uses from clicking the wrong option.
Have you seen WiX yet?
http://wix.sourceforge.net/
It builds windows installers using an XML file and has additional libraries to use if you want to fancify your installers and the like. I'll admit the learning curve for me was medium-high in getting things started, but afterwards I was able to build a second installer without any hassles.
It will handle updates and other items if you so desire, and you can apply folder permissions and the like to the installers. It also gives you greater control on where exactly you want to install files and is compatible with all the standardized Windows folder conventions, so you can specify "PROGRAM_DATA" or something to that effect and the installer knows to put it in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data or C:\ProgramData depending on if you're running XP or Vista.
The rumor is that Office 2007 and Visual Studio 2008 used WiX to create their installer, but I haven't been able to verify that anywhere. I do believe is is developed by some Microsoft folks on the inside.
I agree with Joseph, my experience with ClickOnce is its great for the vast majority of projects especially in a corporate environment where it makes build, publish and deployment easy. Implementing the "forced upgrade" to ensure users have the latest version when running is so much easier in ClickOnce, and a main reason for my usage of it.
Issues with ClickOnce: In a corporate environment it has issues with proxy servers and the workarounds are less than ideal. I've had to deploy a few apps in those cases from UNC paths...but you can't do that all the time. Its "sandbox" is great, until you want to find the executable or create a desktop shortcut.
Have not deployed out of 2008 yet so not sure if those issues still exist.
Creating an installer project, with a dependency on your EXE (which in turn depends on whatever it needs) is a fairly straightforward process - but you'll need at least VS Standard Edition for that.
Inside the installer project, you can create custom tasks and dialog steps that allow you to do anything you code up.
What's missing is the auto-upgrade and version-checking magic you get with ClickOnce. You can still build it in, it's just not automatic.
I don't believe there is any easy way to make a Windows Installer project have the ease or upgradability of ClickOnce. I use ClickOnce for all the internal .NET apps I develop (with the exception of Console Apps). I find that in an enterprise environment, the ease of deployment outweighs the lack of flexibility.
ClickOnce can be problematic if you have 3rd party components that need to be installed along with your product. You can skirt this to some extent by creating installers for the components however with ClickOnce deployment you have to create the logic to update said component installers.
I've in a previous life used Wise For Windows Installer to create installation packages. While creating upgrades with it were not automatic like ClickOnce is, they were more precise and less headache filled when it came to other components that needed to be registered/added.