I can set the product code for a single instance installer with MSBuild like this:
<ItemGroup>
<InstallShieldPropertyOverrides Include="{$(Guid)}">
<Property>ProductCode</Property>
</InstallShieldPropertyOverrides>
</ItemGroup>
How do you set the instance 1 product code?
Is this possible?
If not, then what is an appropriate way to set the product code on each instance transform when using automated builds?
Realistically your best bet is likely to be using Windows Installer or XML automation to edit the project file. This scenario is so specialized and so likely to cause you update problems in the future that InstallShield does not support it directly.
To figure out what you need to change, save a copy of your project, and add or update the instance transforms by hand. Then use MsiDiff or a textual diff (depending on whether you're using binary or XML projects), to identify how the project database is modified, and figure out how to implement equivalent changes automatically.
Related
My goal is to create build definitions within Visual Studio Team Services for both test and production environments. I need to update 2 variables in my code which determine which database and which blob storage the environment uses. Up till now, I've juggled this value in a Resource variable, and pulled that value in code from My.Resources.DB for a library, and Microsoft.Azure.CloudConfigurationManager.GetSetting("DatabaseConnectionString") for an Azure worker role. However, changing 4 variables every time I do a release is getting tiring.
I see a lot of posts that get close to what I want, but they're geared towards C#. For reasons beyond my influence, this project is written in VB.NET. It seems I have 2 options. First, I could call the MSBuild process with a couple of defined properties, passing them to the .metaproj build file, but I don't know how to get them to be used in VB code. That's preferable, but, at this point, I'm starting to doubt that this is possible.
I've been able to set some pre-processor constants, to be recognized in #If-#Else directives.
#If DEBUG = True Then
BarStaticItemVersion.Caption = String.Format("Version: {0}", "1.18.0.xxx")
#Else
BarStaticItemVersion.Caption = String.Format("Version: {0}", "1.18.0.133")
#End If
msbuild CalbertNG.sln.metaproj /t:Rebuild /p:DefineConstants="DEBUG=False"
This seems to work, though I need to Rebuild to change the value of that constant. Should I have to? Should Build be enough? Is this normal, or an indication that I don't have something set quite right?
I've seen other posts that talk about pre-processing the source files with some other builder, like Ant, but that seems like overkill. It feels like I'm close here. But I want to zoom out and ask, from a clean sheet of paper, if you're given 2 variables which need to change per environment, you're using VB.NET, and you want to incorporate those variable values in an automated VS Team Services build process upon code check-in, what's the best way to do it? (I want to define the variables in the VSTS panel, but this just passes them to my builder, so I have to know how to parse the call to MSBuild to make these useful.)
I can control picking between 2 static strings, now, via compiler directives, but I'd really like to reference the Build.BuildNumber that comes out of the MSBuild process to display to the user, and, if I can do that, I can just feed the variables for database and blob container via the same mechanism, and skip the pre-processor.
You've already found the way you can pass data from the MsBuild Arguments directly into the code. An alternative is to use the Condition Attribute in your project files to make certain property groups optional, it allows you to even include specific files conditionally. You can control conditions by passing in /p:ConditionalProperty=value on the MsBuild command. This at least ensures people use a set of values that make sense together.
The problem is that when MsBuild is running in Incremental mode it is likely to not process your changes (as you've noticed), the reason for this, is that the input files remain unchanged since the last build and are all older than the last generated output files.
To by-pass this behavior you'd normally create a separate solution configuration and override the output location for all projects to be unique for that configuration. Combined with setting the Compiler constants for that specific configuration you're ensured that when building that Configuration/Platform combination, incremental builds work as intended.
I do want to echo some of the comments from JerryM and Daniel Mann. Some items are better stored in else where or updated before you actually start the compile phase.
Possible solutions:
Store your configuration data in config files and use Configuration Transformation to generate the right config file base don the selected solution configuration. The process is explained on MSDN. To enable configuration transformation on all project types, you can use SlowCheetah.
Store your ocnfiguration data in the config files and use MsDeploy and specify a Parameters.xml file that matches the deploy package. It will perform the transformation on deploy time and will actually allow your solution to contain a standard config file you use at runtime, plus a publish profile which will post-process your configuration. You can use a SetParameters.xml file to override the variables at deploy time.
Create an installer project (such as through Wix) and merge the final configuration at install time (similar to the MsDeploy). You could even provide a UI which prompts for specific values (and can supply default values).
Use a CI server, like the new TFS/VSTS 2015 task based build engine and combine it with a task that can search&replace tokens, like the Replace Tokens task, Tokenization Task, Colin's ALM Corner Build and Release Tasks. And a whole bunch that specifically deal with versioning. Handling these things in the CI server also allows you to do a quick build locally at all times and do these relatively expensive steps on the build server (patching source code breaks incremental build in MsBuild, because there are always newer input files.
When talking specifically about versioning, there are a number of ways to set the AssemblyVersion and AssemblyFileVersion just before compile time, usually it involves overriding the AssemblyInfo.cs file before compilation. Your code could then use reflection to read the value at runtime. You can use the AssemblyInformationalversion to specify something like you do in the example above which contains .xxx or other text. It also ensures that the version displayed always reflects the information obtained when reading the file properties through Windows Explorer.
I am someone with little to no experience with wix and I am trying to support Windows also for the component I am responsible for. I am trying to create merge module for a set of files that my product generates. These files exist in numerous sub directories. I was wondering how I can create a single component ID for all the files in the entire tree. I am not worried about minor upgrades as that is something I am not going to be doing. I am trying to avoid generating numerous GUIDs for each of the file.
Also is there any way I can change the name of the root directory I want the files to be installed. Currently, in our build system the files I want to install end up in a directory name "install". In the wxs file generated by heat it comes up as install. I was wondering if I could change it to the actual product name instead of "install".
Use one file per component - this avoids all sorts of problems (except .NET assemblies spanning multiple files). See the following thread: One file per component or several files per component?
Wix is a great framework for creating installers, but it has a steep learning curve. I strongly recommend you read a few sections of this great, online tutorial: https://www.firegiant.com/wix/tutorial/
If you are a "sample based tinkerer", you can find an even quicker, sample based tour in this article: http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/105638/A-quick-introduction-Create-an-MSI-installer-with
Wix is hands-on. Just focus on the samples, and focus on getting the components created and a major upgrade set up:
How to implement WiX installer upgrade? (modern, convenience way)
How to get WiX major upgrade working? (legacy way - more flexible, less convenient)
http://wixtoolset.org/documentation/manual/v3/howtos/updates/major_upgrade.html
Once you got that running the rest of the details fall into place by reading the documentation for whatever feature you need. Using Visual Studio / Votive with intellisense ensures that you can learn as you go with features such as shortcuts, ini files, xml files, dialogs, etc...
Another top tip is to use dark.exe (part of the Wix toolkit) to decompile existing MSI files. This yields Wix XML with code you can copy and paste into your own Wix files. I use other MSI tools to compile such MSI files, and then copy the sections I need into my Wix file - just to speed up the process of creating the Wix XML. Studying the decompiled XML is very educational - a real time saver.
UPDATE, May 2021: Some more links:
WiX Quick Start - Very long version
WiX Quick Start - Short version
If all the files are going to the same destination folder, then you can create one single COMPONENT with all the FILE within it. There is nothing stopping you to do that. You can then just create one GUID for that component. Also read these answers which talks about the advantages vs disadvantages of one component vs multiple components before you implement it: Answer1 Answer2. To Summarize:
You will have trouble with minor upgrades/repairs. If a component is
being updated, only the file designated as the KEYPATH is checked to see if
it is out of date: if it is up to date, all the others are ignored.
You'll also have difficulty if you want to add or remove files from each
component. Once released, a component is immutable (in terms of what files
are in it). The only way to update it without breaking component rules would
be to effectively remove and install the a new version of the MSI.
Understanding the component rules is key in Windows Installer and one file
per component makes the component rules easier to work with, which is why it
is the recommendation of many people here.
LINK
The root directory name can be changed by modifying the "Name" property for the DIRECTORY element.
I'm developer on a big system (>100 Projects in Solution, >100 000 LOC, > 10 Services, ...) and did the installation of this system in the past with wix and it worked fine. Now I need a way to patch (Minor Upgrade) parts of the system and run into several issues.
My Current Wix Setup is as following:
I have VS2010 and Wix3.6 Toolset and TFS2012 to Build the whole thing and get an installer
I'm using a Setup Library Project Type per Service
I'm using exactly one Setup Project to bundle things together and get one installer for the whole system.
It's not possible to change this setup.
The Setup Library Projects are set up as following:
I use the heat-directory msbuild task to generate the components and files and I'm using preprocessor variables to modify the file paths.
I need to modify the file paths because it must be possible to build an installer on the local developer system and to build the installer on the tfs build system which is different in folder structures.
The TFS uses always the same directory to compile subsequent versions of the software and moves the output after successful compilation to a unique folder structure.
Now I need a patch.
I created the Patch.wxs and called candle and light for it. I called torch to get the difference file. And finally want to create the patch with pyro.
Everything worked fine with a simple testproject, but on the big system
Pyro has the problem that it can't find the files to install.
Through my setup (see above), I must use preprocessor variables and have a full qualified path in my wix output (for example: C:\builds\myproduct\prodct.exe as file source). After moving the TFS output to another location this path is not valid anymore. I tried to use -bt and -bu switches for pyro, but this does only work for relative paths or for named bindpaths.
Now I wanted to change my wix project setup to use named bindpaths rather than preprocessor variables, but it seems that this is not possible.
heat can only use preprocessor variables or wixvariables but it seems not to be possible to use bindpath variables. heat provides a switch -wixvar which should create binder variables instead of preprocessor variables but I does exactly nothing.
Now I tried do use no wix and no preprocessor variables in heat and tell light per -bu -bt switches where to find the files. But if I do not set a preprocessor variable the resulting files look like Sources\product.exe. I can't get rid of this Sources. I know that I can transform all the xml with xslt and remove the Sources but thats a workaround which I would only implement if no other solution is possible. This would also mean that there is a problem in the wix toolchain.
It looks like pyro does only support bindpath variables and heat does only support preprocessor and wix variables. This seems to be really crazy, because how should they work together?
How can I create a patch if I use lit, light, candle, heat, torch and pyro and if the original build paths have changed (which is very common on a build system) and the file paths are created with heat and therefore be fixed or preprocessor or wix variables?
As you've found heat wasn't designed to be used in the patching scenario. It was only in recent versions of the WiX toolset that the generated GUIDs got to a point where there was even a chance that heat could successfully build output that would be patchable. Still need to do work there to make patching where heat is used work well.
Ultimately, I believe the answer is to simplify the "original source" problem. It is challenging to get all the bindpaths set up correctly and that makes patching, which is a hard problem, even harder. We've kicked around a few ideas but nothing has come together yet.
You could always use admin image based patching. It's slower but can be easier to get the "original source" and "target" laid out. That path does lose filtering though.
Basically, we need to do a bit more work in patching scenarios to make it much easier.
PS: "Source" in the path for a File/#Source attribute is an alias for the "default bindpath". You can use bindpaths there.
I just joined a team that has no CI process in place (not even an overnight build) and some sketchy development practices. There's desire to change that, so I've now been tasked with creating an overnight build. I've followed along with this series of articles to: create a master solution that contains all our projects (some web apps, a web service, some Windows services, and couple off tools that compile to command line executables); created an MSBuild script to automatically build, package, and deploy our products; and created a .cmd file to do it all in one click. Here's a task that I'm trying to accomplish now as part of all this:
The team currently has a practice of keeping the web.config and app.config files outside of source control, and to put into source control files called web.template.config and app.template.config. The intention is that the developer will copy the .template.config file to .config in order to get all of the standard configuration values, and then be able to edit the values in the .config file to whatever he needs for local development/testing. For obvious reasons, I would like to automate the process of renaming the .template.config file to .config. What would be the best way to do this?
Is it possible to do this in the build script itself, without having to stipulate within the script every individual file that needs to be renamed (which would require maintenance to the script any time a new project is added to the solution)? Or might I have to write some batch file that I simply run from the script?
Furthermore, is there a better development solution that I can suggest that will make this entire process unnecessary?
After a lot of reading about Item Groups, Targets, and the Copy task, I've figured out how to do what I need.
<ItemGroup>
<FilesToCopy Include="..\**\app.template.config">
<NewFilename>app.config</NewFilename>
</FilesToCopy>
<FilesToCopy Include="..\**\web.template.config">
<NewFilename>web.config</NewFilename>
</FilesToCopy>
<FilesToCopy Include"..\Hibernate\hibernate.cfg.template.xml">
<NewFilename>hibernate.cfg.xml</NewFilename>
</FilesToCopy>
</ItemGroup>
<Target Name="CopyFiles"
Inputs="#(FilesToCopy)"
Outputs="#(FilesToCopy->'%(RootDir)%(Directory)%(NewFilename)')">
<Message Text="Copying *.template.config files to *.config"/>
<Copy SourceFiles="#(FilesToCopy)"
DestinationFiles="#(FilesToCopy->'%(RootDir)%(Directory)%(NewFilename)')"/>
I create an item group that contains the files that I want to copy. The ** operator tells it to recurse through the entire directory tree to find every file with the specified name. I then add a piece of metadata to each of those files called "NewFilename". This is what I will be renaming each file to.
This snippet adds every file in the directory structure named app.template.config and specifies that I will be naming the new file app.config:
<FilesToCopy Include="..\**\app.template.config">
<NewFilename>app.config</NewFilename>
</FilesToCopy>
I then create a target to copy all of the files. This target was initially very simple, only calling the Copy task in order to always copy and overwrite the files. I pass the FilesToCopy item group as the source of the copy operation. I use transforms in order to specify the output filenames, as well as my NewFilename metadata and the well-known item metadata.
The following snippet will e.g. transform the file c:\Project\Subdir\app.template.config to c:\Project\Subdir\app.config and copy the former to the latter:
<Target Name="CopyFiles">
<Copy SourceFiles="#(FilesToCopy)"
DestinationFiles="#(FilesToCopy->'%(RootDir)%(Directory)%(NewFileName)')"/>
</Target>
But then I noticed that a developer might not appreciate having his customized web.config file being over-written every time the script is run. However, the developer probably should get his local file over-written if the repository's web.template.config has been modified, and now has new values in it that the code needs. I tried doing this a number of different ways--setting the Copy attribute "SkipUnchangedFiles" to true, using the "Exist()" function--to no avail.
The solution to this was building incrementally. This ensures that files will only be over-written if the app.template.config is newer. I pass the names of the files as the target input, and I specify the new file names as the target output:
<Target Name="CopyFiles"
Input="#(FilesToCopy)"
Output="#(FilesToCopy->'%(RootDir)%(Directory)%(NewFileName)')">
...
</Target>
This has the target check to see if the current output is up-to-date with respect to the input. If it isn't, i.e. the particular .template.config file has more recent changes than its corresponding .config file, then it will copy the web.template.config over the existing web.config. Otherwise, it will leave the developer's web.config file alone and unmodified. If none of the specified files needs to be copied, then the target is skipped altogether. Immediately after a clean repository clone, every file will be copied.
The above turned out be a satisfying solution, as I've only started using MSBuild and I'm surprised by its powerful capabilities. The only thing I don't like about it is that I had to repeat the exact same transform in two places. I hate duplicating any kind of code, but I couldn't figure out how to avoid this. If anyone has a tip, it'd be greatly appreciated. Also, while I think the development practice that necessitates this totally sucks, this does help in mitigating that suck factor.
Short answer:
Yes, you can (and should) automate this. You should be able to use MSBuild Move task to rename files.
Long answer:
It is great that there is a desire to change from a manual process to an automatic one. There are usually very few real reasons not to automate. Your build script will act as living documentation of how build and deployment actually works. In my humble opinion, a good build script is worth a lot more than static documentation (although I am not saying you should not have documentation - they are not mutually exclusive after all). Let's address your questions individually.
What would be the best way to do this?
I don't have a full understanding of what configuration you are storing in those files, but I suspect a lot of that configuration can be shared across the development team.
I would suggest raising the following questions:
Which of the settings are developer-specific?
Is there any way to standardise local developer machines so that settings could be shared?
Is it possible to do this in the build script itself, without having to stipulate within the script every individual file that needs to be renamed?
Yes, have a look at MSBuild Move task. You should be able to use it to rename files.
...which would require maintenance to the script any time a new project is added to the solution?
This is inevitable - your build scripts must evolve together with your solution. Accept this as a fact and include in your estimates time to make changes to your build scripts.
Furthermore, is there a better development solution that I can suggest that will make this entire process unnecessary?
I am not aware of all the requirements, so it is hard to recommend something very specific. I can say suggest this:
Create a shared build script for your solution
Automate manual tasks as much as possible (within reason)
If you are struggling to automate something - it could be an indicator of an area that needs to be rethought/redesigned
Make sure your team mates understand how the build works and are able to make changes to it themselves - don't "own" the build and become a bottleneck
Bear in mind that going from no build script to full automation is not an overnight process. Be patient and first focus on automating areas that are causing the most pain.
If I have misinterpreted any of your questions, please let me know and I will update the answer.
I have a C# project which is built in a few different configurations. Some of the source files should be always included, and some only in certain configurations. So far I've been doing this with #if ... #endif around the entire files, but I was hoping to create a small extension to do this a nicer way.
I've created an extension that adds an item to files' context menus, but I can't find any way to set the Condition attribute on the item node in the project file.
I've looked at the Properties collection of the EnvDTE.ProjectItem interface, but can't see anything useful there (except BuildAction... I'll come back to that).
Then I tried getting an IVsBuildPropertyStorage on the item and calling SetItemAttribute(). This does add information to the project file, but as a child element like this:
<ItemGroup>
<Compile Include="Program.cs">
<Condition>%27%24%28Configuration%29%27==%27Debug%27</Condition>
</Compile>
</ItemGroup>
when what I was trying to achieve was:
<ItemGroup>
<Compile Include="Program.cs" Condition="'$(Configuration)'=='Debug'" />
</ItemGroup>
There's also an IVsBuildPropertyStorage.SetPropertyValue() but that adds a similar child element to a PropertyGroup section near the top, not to the item node.
I've looked at 'Project Subtypes/Flavors', but that looks like it's just going to get me another IVsBuildPropertyStorage, which doesn't seem to be useful. They do look capable of a lot of complex things, but documentation on the subject appears to be minimal and vague.
I've seen some posts describing how to use the MSBuild assemblies to directly load and manipulate the project file, but I'm not sure when is safe to do that without confusing Visual Studio and potentially losing changes, since VS prompts to reload when it detects changes to the project file.
As a last idea, I thought about manipulating the BuildAction property between Compile and None, but that sounds like it could be a lot of work for my extension to maintain correctly, keeping it in sync with every time the user switches configurations in the IDE for example.
Is there anyone with any experience with this kind of thing that has any advice to offer me, or should I give up hope and stick with manually adding #if directives everywhere?
You may like to explore the MSBuild option you mentioned.
You don't actually have to load the MSBuild project from file, because Visual Studio gives you a way of accessing the MSBuild project directly, i.e.:
string projectPath = projectItem.ContainingProject.FullName;
MsBuildProject project = ProjectCollection.GlobalProjectCollection.GetLoadedProjects(projectPath);
var compileItems = project.GetItems("Compile");
From there you can locate your specific items and potentially add the condition attribute, though I haven't tried this step myself (if this doesn't work, you might have to try modifying the project elements under the project.Xml property instead).
You can then call project.Save(), which shouldn't trigger the "Reload project?" dialog because of the way the MsBuild project instance is linked to the Visual Studio project hierarchy.
However, you may like to force Visual Studio to reload the project anyway, because if you switch build configurations (e.g. between Debug and Release), the MSBuild engine may not re-evaluate your item conditions during build. The code to do this programmatically can be found here:
How do I programmatically refresh/reload a VS project after modifying the underlying file?
Unfortunately I never got the time to persue the original goal of creating an extension for doing this, however I did achieve what I needed using the suggestion by lex-li: using separate project files per configuration.
Since the project files can all reside in the same directory, it's easy to simply use the 'Include/Exclude from project' context menu item in the solution explorer to choose which files are included. There's also no need for file linking this way, which I'd tried before and found very time-consuming to manage.
Partial Methods are also worth looking at, if you have similar needs. They allow you to define the signature of a method in one place, but optionally implement it elsewhere. If you don't implement it, no call is generated by the compiler.
With respect to the original idea of the extension, I suspect the answer by Daniel Nolan was heading in the right direction, but unfortunately I didn't get to try it out.