I have created a project (and invested significant time & effort on it :-) ) .
When I try to add add-ons it complaints about some missing bits and pieces. Looking around, the root cause seems to be that I created this with the default barebones boilerplate, instead of the richer bootstrap3 boilerplate.
However, there is no option I can find to change the boilerplate. Is it possible to change the boilerplate it is built on? Is there a magic concoction...?
An Aldryn employee helped me out in their chatroom with this problem -- if you're trying to make changes on your templates and whatnot locally, and they aren't being reflected on the site when you deploy the test server, you can get things re-synched by totally deleting your local files, opening the test server with the desktop client, and clicking on the "auto-sync this project" button. This takes what's on the test server, and rebuilds the local files on your computer with that. Then, your local changes (remember to save your changes first!) should be reflected when you deploy the test server (after clicking on the "Refresh Projects" button in the lower righthand corner of the desktop client).
If you have a ton of work that you'd rather not delete and rewrite, you can move your local files elsewhere on your hard drive, and then replace the files that are written from the test server with them.
Cheers to Angelo for helping me with that. It's kind of a quirky solution, and I'd have never figured it out on my own.
You can also add custom boilerplates here (I think that'll make you log in to your account to see it), but I haven't attempted a custom boilerplate, yet, so I can't vouch for how well one would jive with the rest of the Aldryn platform.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that, while the title is unlikely to grab the interest of somebody who's making their own boilerplates, the first two or three entries in this series could be quite helpful in implementing your custom work into Aldryn's framework.
Related
I'm trying to set up a deployment chain for some of our ASP.NET applications. The tool of choice is Web Deploy (msdeploy) - for now. Unfortunately I'm stuck on a problem.
A high level overview of the chain is thus:
Web developer creates the code and checks it in SVN;
Buildserver sees the update and builds the msdeploy .zip package of the website;
The .zip package is automatically put inside our installer and sent to various clients;
The clients run the installer on their webserver(-s);
The installer uses msdeploy internally to deploy the .zip package and create a new website or upgrade an existing one.
Msdeploy makes it easy to deploy a new instance, but I'm stumped about how to perform an "upgrade" install. The main problem is the web.config file. Each client will most certainly have made some customizations there to suit their specific environment. The installer itself offers to set some more critical parameters at the first-time installation (achieved by msdeploy's parameter mechanism), but they can do others by hand.
On the other hand, we developers also occasionally make changes to web.config, adding some new settings or removing obsolete ones. So I can't just tell msdeploy to ignore the file entirely. I need some kind of advanced XML modification mechanism. It could be a script that the developers maintain, but then it needs to be run ONLY at upgrades, not new installs.
I've no idea how to accomplish this.
Besides that, sometimes there's also some completely weird upgrade logic. For example, the application comes with our company logo, but some clients have replaced that .png file to show their own logo. Recently we needed to update the logo - but only for clients that hadn't replaced it with their own.
Similarly, there might be some cache folders that might need to be cleaned at SOME upgrades but not at others. Or folders with user content that may not be touched (but come with default content at the initial installation). Etc.
How do you normally achieve this dual behavior for msdeploy packages? Do I really need to create 2 distinct packages for every application?
Suggestion from personal experience:
Isolate customisations
Your customers should have the ability to customise their set up and the best way is to provide them with something like an override file. That way you install the new package and follow by superimposing your customer's customisations on top of your standard setup. If its a brand new install then there will be nothing to superimpose.
> top-level --
> standard files |
images | This will never be touched or changed by customer
settings.txt |
__
> customer files --
images | Customer hacks this to their heart's content
settings.txt_override |
--
Yes, this does mean that some kind of merging process needs to happen and there needs to be some script that does that but this approach has several advantages.
For settings that suddenly become redundant just issue a warning to that effect
If a customer has their own logo provide the ability to specify this in the override file
The message is clear to customers. Stay off standard files.
If customers request more customisable settings then write the default if it does not exist into the override file during upgrades.
Vilx, in answer to your question, the logic for knowing whether it is an upgrade or not must be contained in the script itself.
To run an upgrade script before installation
msdeploy -verb:sync -source:contentPath="C:\Test1" -dest:contentPath="C:\Test2" -preSync:runcommand="c:\UpgradeScript.bat"
Or to run an upgrade script after installation
msdeploy -verb:sync -source:contentPath="C:\Test1" -dest:contentPath="C:\Test2" -postSync:runcommand="c:\UpgradeScript.bat"
More info here
As to how you know its an upgrade your script could check for a text file called "version.txt" and if it exists the upgrade bat script will run. Version to be contained within the text file. Bit basic but it should work.
This also has the added advantage of giving you the ability of more elegantly merging customer's custom settings between versions as you know which properties could be overriden for that particular version.
There are some general suggestions (not specific to msdeploy), but I hope that helps:
I think you'll need to provide several installers anyway: for the initial setup and for each version-to-version upgrade.
I would suggest to let your clients to merge the config files themselves. You could just provide them either detailed desciption of waht was added/changed/removed, and/or include the utility that simplifies the merge. Maybe this and this links will give you some pointers.
as for merging the replaced logos, other client's customization, I think the best approach would be to support branding your application. I mean - move all branding details to the place where your new/upgrade installers won't touch that.
as for the rest of the adjustments made by your clients, they do that on their own risk, so the only help you could provide them is to include the detailed list of changes (maybe even the list of changed files since the previous version) and the How-To article about merging the sources with tools like Araxis Merge or similar
Or.. you could create a utility and include it to the installer, which will try to do all the tricky merging stuff on client's machine. I would not recommend this way as it requires a lot of efforts/resources to maintain.
One more thing: you could focus on backup-ing the previous client copy before upgrade. So even client will have troubles with upgrading - that will be always possible to roll back. The only thing here for you is to provide a good feedback channel which your clients can use to shoot their troubles. This feedback will allow you to figure out what the troubles your clients have and how to make their upgrade process more comfortable.
I would build on what the above have said, but I would do it with transformations, and strict documentation about who configures what. The way you have it now relies on customer intervention against a config that is mission critical to the app deploy process.
Create three config file areas. One for development, one for the "production generic" build, and one that is an empty template for the customer to edit.
The development instance should be self explanatory. This is the transform that takes the production generic template and creates a web config for your development server. (it sounds like you are shooting for a CI type process here)
The "production generic" transform should set the app up for a hypothetically perfect instance of the app. This is what the install would look like if the architect had his way.
The customer transform is used by the customers to set up the web config as required to meet their own needs. Write some documentation and see what happens. Edit the docs as you help customers through the process.
It that what you were looking for? Thoughts?
We have an asp.net web site that is deployed on several IIS servers. The site is compile-on-demand as opposed to a pre-compiled web application.
Normally deployments go fine but every now and again we get a 401 for one of the deployed pages on one of the servers. There is nothing special about which page or which server apart from the fact that it's generally the higher traffic pages that it happens to.
The only way to rectify this is to deploy the same page again.
The ACLs look fine on the files themselves so the thought is that there is a file locking issue in the Temporary ASP.NET Files folder when the specific page is re-compiled.
Has anyone seen this before or have any suggestions how to avoid this?
Note: This only seems to have happened since we moved to .net 4.0
As far as I can tell we are getting a 401.3 Denied by resource ACL http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907273
But I have not been able to confirm this.
Those kinds of locks have always been a problem with live site deployment. The reason it's hard to replicate is because you are mid-request when copying/compiling on the server, and this ends up confusing IIS.
We operate a Blue/Green deployment strategy on a 4 tier architecture which has a web site over 4 servers at the top tier. Due to the complexity the architecture introduced for deployments, we needed a way to deploy without disturbing any traffic to the "live" site. Following Fowler's advice, but not quite in the same way, we came up with a solution that means we have 2 sites on each server (a blue and a green, or in our case site A and site B). The live site has the appropriate host header, and once we have deployed and tested to the non-live site, we then flip the headers of the 2 sites so that what was once live is now the non-live site, and vice-versa. The effect is, a robust deployment that can be done in hours and with the highest level of confidence.
This of course complicates your configuration and deployment slightly, but it's worth the effort. I guess it kind of goes without saying that you want to script both the deployment, and the host header swapping.
When i deploy to a server i bring the site down for a minute (or however long the deployment takes) - it may be down anyway during this time as pages are recompiled so it is not too much of a hit. You can do this by creating a file in the root of the app called app_offline.aspx (it needs at least 512 characters in length) once that file is created you can then copy the resources ot the folder knowing there will not be any locking issues. then when the copy is complete remove the app_offline file.
For those that want to achieve a .net website deployment without these issues, one option is to copy the new website files into a new folder first ( not the active website). Then you just change IIS to point to the new folder after all copying is complete.
This can be done in a single server environment for those of us on more limited resources without multiple servers per website.
At my work we write power shell scripts to deploy websites. The powers shell script creates a new directory with a time stamp, copies the new deployment there, then tells IIS to point the website to the new directory (leaving the old directories "orphaned" but still there).
If we really messed something up, we can simply revert by pointing IIS back at the previous date stamp directory. Otherwise if everything tests ok, we can delete the old folder.
This technique works well because you are never writing over a file while it is in use. However it still results in zero downtime. The only effect you will see is the normal .net "warm up" that occurs anytime you change the code behinds or assemblies.
I had several answers suggesting a new environment to deploy. This is something we have been considering for the long term but it's hard to justify the extra work when we regularly deploy only one or two files without a problem. I was really more interested in finding out what is actually happening and why.
In terms of a workaround, and this might sound obvious after the fact, a simple app_pool recycle solves the permissions issue and is much easier than testing for the issue and redeploying the file until the problem goes away.
I write a lot of code, most of it I throw away eventually when I am done with it; recently I was thinking that if I just kept every small piece of utility script I wrote, named it, tagged it and filed it in a dev shell, I will never loose the code, and on top of that I won't need to redo something I have done already, which is the main motivation, as I keep finding myself writing something I've done earlier.
Is there a ASP.NET shell style environment anywhere?
If not, what would be the best way to go about this?
I am looking to be able to do the following:
Write big or small bits of code.
Derive from or chain together alread written code/libraries/services.
Ability to have everything on my desktop (would that mean IIS on the desktop? or is there an lighter weight mechanism?), sync'ed with the server at home, so if I am on the move I can still access this and make this part of my day-to-day workflow.
You could build a unique solution, with many class library projects inside. Each project would address a specific scenario, something like this:
MyStuff (Solution)
MyStuff.Common
MyStuff.Validation
MyStuff.Web
MyStuff.Encryption
etc.
Then you can put this solution on an online versioning service like bitbucket or assembla, so you can access your source code from anywhere, edit it and commit it back to the server. This way you get the advantages of versioning and you store your code on a remote server so even if your harddisk breaks it's not a problem, cause what's on the server is what matters.
You should either look into a source control system (Git perhaps?) or into a file storage / syncing / sharing service like DropBox.
DropBox would allow you to access code snippets from wherever you are and works really easily (just drop a file into a folder).
If you need versioning and branching you're going to have to look into a source control system. Since you have a server at home, that should be no problem.
I'm trying desperately to move from VSS to a real source control system. Options include TFS and SVN.
My designers need to keep their ability to modify source files and instantly preview their changes in a browser without having to commit their changes. Using FPSE with VSS, this works flawlessly, since saving a file causes the copy in the working folder on the dev server to be updated, so they can just save and refresh their browser which is pointed at the dev server.
The site in question consists of 350k+ lines of classic ASP code and some new ASP.NET MVC. They only need to be able to modify views within the MVC code, not C#.
Though Expression includes a version of Cassini for local debugging, Cassini does not support classic ASP.
Surely someone has solved this problem before. It can't be necessary to install IIS on each designer's machine (this is absolutely untenable). I need a way to have a common working folder on a dev webserver updated whenever someone saves a file locally, just like using FPSE.
I'd rather not write an FPSE proxy that knows how to talk to TFS/SVN. Any suggestions?
(I know I've asked this question in the past, but I haven't yet found a solution.)
Why the need to copy the source files when they are saved, why not simply save the files to a network share and work on them directly? If the dev server is constantly being overwritten after every save anyway surely the effect is the same?
This probably won't be as instantaneous as you like, but with TFS you could set up a Continuous Integration (CI) build that builds and deploys the project to a test server on check-in. If you do this, you'll want them checking in to a QA type branch, then, once they are happy with how they look, they can then merge to the mainline branch for the real build and integration.
As part of my overall development practices review I'm looking at how best to streamline and automate our ASP.net web development practices.
At the moment, our process goes something like this:
Designer builds frontend as static HTML/CSS on a network share. This gets tweaked until signed off. (e.g. http://myserver/acmesite_design)
Once signed off, developer takes over and copies over frontend HTML/CSS to a new directory on the same server (e.g. http://myserver/acmesite_development)
Multiple developers work on local copy until project is complete.
Developer publishes code to an external publicly accessible server for a client to review/signoff.
Edits made locally based on feedback.
Republish to external server.
Signoff
Developer publishes to live public server
What goes wrong? Lots of things!
Version Control — this is obviously a must and is being introduced
Configuration errors — many many times, there are environment specific paths and variables (such as DB names, image upload directories, web server paths etc. etc.) which incorrectly get copied from local to staging to live etc. etc. with very embarrassing results.
I'm pretty confident I've got no.1 under control. What about configuration management? Does anyone have any advice as to how best to manage an applications structure within asp.net apps to minimize these kinds of problems?
I found that using SVN, NAnt and NUnit with Cruise Control.net solves a lot of the issues you describe. I think it works well for small groups and it's all free. Just need to learn how to use them.
CruiseControl.net helps you put together builds and continuous integration.
Use NAnt or MSBuild to do different environment builds (DEV, TEST, PROD, etc).
http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/CCNET/Welcome+to+CruiseControl.NET
You got the most important part right. Use version control. Subversion is a good choice.
I usually store configuration along with the site; i.e. when coding a PHP-based site I have a file named config.php-dist. If you want the site to work at all you'll have to copy + edit in all the required parameters (this avoids storing passwords in version control). The -dist file should have reasonable defaults.
Upload directories should be relative if possible; actually all directories should be relative. I'm not experienced in ASP.net, but if it's anything like PHP the current directory is always the directory of the file being requested. If you channel all requests through a single file (i.e. index.asp), then this can even be found programmatically. Or you could find it programmatically by using the equivalent of dirname(____FILE____) in your configuration file.
I also recommend installing IIS (or whatever webserver you are using) on all development workstations (including the designers). Makes life easier as noone can step on each others toes. What one has to do is simply add test hosts to the hosts file (\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts iirc) in addition to adding a site to the local IIS. This plays well with version control (checkout, add site to IIS and hosts-file, edit edit edit commit).
One thing that really helps is making sure you keep your paths relative where you can and centralise them where you can't, so when I've been working with ASP.Net I have tended to use web.config to store any configuration and path related data that can't be found programmatically. It is quite possible to find information like your current application path programmatically through the Request object - it's worth looking in some detail over what the environment makes available to you.
One way to make sure you don't end up on something that is dependent on the path name is having a continuous integration server executing your test suite against your application. Each time this happens you create a random filepath. As soon as someone introduces a dependency on the filepath it will fail.