So I have an Asp.Net website that i'm responsible for. I'm having a build issue, that as far as I can tell, may be either MacAfee or some other random cause.
But thinking back, I want to say the problem started when I added a "Test.aspx" form to the site, did some testing, then removed the Test.aspx form from the site.
I'm using TFS 2010 as my source control as well. Which I don't know if it applies or not.
My question is, is there some hidden location where all files to be included in publishing a website is maintained?
Is there a Project file for a Web Site app and if so where is it?
I've built the site using MSBUILD and notice some metaprj project file in the output but I can't seem to find any such file.
Web Site apps aren't meant to be built into a dll file. There is a conversion wizard to make it a web project but it doesn't always work well. My advice would be to continue to work with it as a Web Site app. The code files are compiled at at runtime on first use. You can run from Visual Studio or setup a site in IIS. Nothing is hidden in a Web Site app and there is no project file. So, you shouldn't have a build issue because you shouldn't be building. Try to run the app as is and if you get an error let us know what the specific message is.
Related
I'm sure there's something simple I'm missing.
I'm attempting to help a buddy move his ASP site from one host to another to avoid some questionable billing practices. I usually work with PHP-based sites (Wordpress etc.) and, unfortunately, have no experience with VS or ASP.
He's temporarily moving to Godaddy on their Plesk offering temporarily until he can work out something else. He provided me with all of the files contained within his ftp (containing his site's default.asp file, header, footer etc.) as well as an archive.xml, parameters.xml, and a systemsinfo.xml file. No .snl file or anything like that.
The files did not come with a web.config file. The error I keep getting, after uploading the FTP files is "HTTP Error 502.5 - Process Failure". From my understanding, it's often related to the web.config file. And from what I understand, you can have one generated by deploying the site through VS. Problem is, I'm at a loss as to what the proper actions to deploy this project.
Plesk provides a .publish settings file, I'm just at a loss as to how to properly open this file in VS to then have it create a "web.config" file and proceed to have it publish to the hosting. Part of this is I'm unsure how to properly open a project like this in Visual Composer to then proceed with the process of setting a web.config file and going forward with the deploying.
Not knowing exactly how to open this project without an .snl file or anything, I tried creating a new project and dropping in the other files to try and set up the process that way with no luck. Considering that Plesk provides a deploy file with that information, I'm assuming if I can properly open the project, working locally, I can then go through the deploy process. I'm just at a loss as to how I can properly setup a new project with someone else project files without an .snl file or otherwise.
Any guidance that you provide would be awesome.
Thank you.
Well, if you missing basic files required to operate the site such as web.config, then you don't have the site or files required, right?
Either FTP down the existing site, or you go to the source code and VS project, and re-compile the code, and re-publish. In fact, I suggest publishing to a local simple file folder.
Even publishing to a local file folder is a good start. Now, just copy that local folder that you published from the source code project, and that published folder should work on the new site. But, really, missing files like web.config? Rather fundamental that you have ALL files of that existing published site, or you have to go back to source code project in VS and re-publish.
since that site has vb.net or c# code? Then it also not clear if the original site was a
asp.net web site
or
asp.net web site application.
Rather critical you determine the above. The reason is that for a asp.net web site application, then at publish time, all code is complied at publish time, source code is stripped out, and then you have a working site.
If this is a web site (not web site application), then all source code is in fact published to the web site, and IIS is now responsible for compiling the .net code.
but, gooly, without a web config file, you simple don't have the files for that site to work - NOT even close!!!
but, as noted, if you have the original source code and VS project, then I would of course use the source code project for the publish. As noted, you can publish via FTP, and several other ways - but I in most cases use folder/file publish to a local folder, and then that is FTP up to the site.
You also don't mention if a database is involved. But, the connection strings to the database will FOR SURE change on the new site - and that boatload of required information will of course be in the web config file.
So, what road will much depend on if you going to download the exiting site, or your going back to the original source code and Visual Studio project.
So, first step - which will take about 10 seconds of your time is to determine if this is a asp.net web site, or a asp.net web site application.
If the existing published site has the c# (or vb.net) source code, then this was/is a web site.
If the existing published site does NOT have the source code, then of course this was a asp.net web site application - and Visual Studio is responsible for compiling the code BEFORE publish.
I guess this really comes down to if you have the source code and the original project used to build the site in VS or not?
I mean, if you have the source code (not compiled) of that site and have the full project in VS, then that's your best starting point. And if that site was published asp.net web site (application), then FTP and downloading the site WILL NOT get you a working asp.net project in VS.
This is much like saying you have a some .exe program, but don't have the source code and project used to build that .exe.
Same goes for asp.net. but, as I stated, often the web site as opposed to web site application model is used, and in that case, then you would get and have the source code files by a simple FTP download. But, you don't even have the web.config file - and that makes no sense at all, since that going to exist in the current site if you download, and it would exist in the original VS project used to create that site in the first place. During a publish, we often have an additional config file that has the local database connections, and during publish, they are transformed into the correct database connections for the published site. But then again, you not even noted or mentioned if a database is involved here.
I mean, if I was handed a LAMP project (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP), and had to publish that site? gooly, I not worked with LAMP, but I'm sure it would be a week, or more for me to figure that out, since I'm not familiar with LAMP, and how such sites are laid out, let alone how the configuration of such a site works. Big job if the whole system, programming language and framework is something you never used before.
I know that Godaddy use Plesk control panel too. But you need to make sure that Godaddy has support .NET Core. You may refer to this post https://dotnetblog.asphostportal.com/how-to-fix-error-502-5-process-failure-asp-net-core/. I believe it will solve your issue.
So I'm using visual studio 2010 to build a website that was formerly running on PHP, so I'm pretty new to the environment.
In starting the project I built a website project, not a web application project. I know that will probably generate a lot of "never use a website project, use a web application project instead" comments, but bear with me.
I'm attempting to provide our server team with the necessary files to compile on our server for the first time. However they're used to working with web application files, not website files.
Normally they are given the source code and a batch file that compiles the code into deployment directories and then they just move the files to the server from there. I'm pretty sure that the other teams use deployment packages to do this, which obviously isn't an option for a website.
My question is, what would be the equivalent steps for getting the source for a website ready to deploy vs a web application? I have published the website to a separate folder and this has rendered what I think is the equivalent in many ways, but I wanted to make sure.
Also, is it possible to publish certain parts of a website without others?
Please with-hold all the comments about how I should be using a web application instead, google seems to assume that's all that's used out there too.
Thanks!
There isn't much to deploying a web site other than copying the source files to a directory in IIS. It will compile the site automatically on the first page request.
I agree with Britton. I personally prefer web application but with the web site project you have 2 options.
Either a) Upload all the files (including the .vb or .cs files) and the web server will compile on the fly. OR, you can publish to a separate folder locally on your machine, and then upload that folder. I would do the publish if you don't want anyone seeing your source code.
I have inherited an old ASP.NET web site project (not a web project), so it uses the web site model from what I gather. There is no code in the App_Code folder. There are dozens of aspx and aspx.cs files in a different folder.
What I have done so far:
I have copied the entire project locally from the previous person's fileshare (he's gone and didn't use TFS).
I loaded the web site in VS2008, made a small change to an email address in the code and rebuilt it.
At this point, it compiles fine, no errors. But the dlls in the bin folder do not reflect the proper date/time stamp. I published the site to the test server and it is still using the previous email address before I updated it.
My problem: Why would the dll not get updated? I have read there is a difference between a web site model and a web application model. When I select Build from the menu, it actually says "Build Web Site", and not the project name. This is my first experience using this type of project.
My Question: Any ideas what I can do to resolve? I have already combed through similar questions on this site but the ones that are closest to my issue don't have resolve/answered status.
Thanks
From what I recall, didn't websites perform runtime compilation and hence not generate a dll? Don't quote me on that though, it's been a while. Could you convert it to a web application from VS?
You should have a solution with at least two projects:
Sln
- Website
- DLL
On the Website add a reference to the DLL and build. Should take care of it.
Alternatively you could convert to a Web Application as well, but you'd have the same problem if your project structure is not correct.
I noticed one weird thing today, and I'll appreciate your input on this.
I was assigned to work on a VB.NET project. I took the project files from the server locally.
I opened Visual Studio and then did open project, the project loaded in the solution and I did build, I got errors, pls check screenshot:
http://gyazo.com/3fe2ea4d5ff8fd073355d43160861e70.png?1348166929
2nd try, I opened Visual Studio and instead open project, I did open website, I selected the folder where the files are located and then open website. I build the solution, it says build succeded and the website runs fine in the browser.
Now I want to know why that's happening, why when I am trying to open as a project I am getting errors, and when I am opening as a website, website starts ok.
Thanks in advance, Laziale
In VS, Projects and Websites are different - a Project is a collection of files managed by a *.proj file (e.g. *.csproj, *.vcproj, *.vbproj), whereas a Website is just a filesystem folder without much in the way of project management metadata.
The second main difference is that Websites have a different Build process - unless you explicitly opt-in to pre-compilation the project is not compiled at design-time, instead everything is compiled by the webserver at runtime, which means you need to distribute all of your source code.
It also means that compile-time errors are harder to detect. You will get the same errors in a Website as in a Project, it just means you need to perform a live website action that uses the same error-prone *.vb files, and you'll get a lovely YSoD error then (rather than in the IDE before you publish it).
"Websites" were introduced in VS2005 as an "easier" alternative to VS2003's ASP.NET Web Applications, but there was a lot of backlash from developers - I wouldn't be surprised if they removed it from a future VS release.
When I use Build->Publish Web Site in Visual Studio 2008, most of the time it compiles the site, and then simply asks me "All files in the target folder will be deleted. Continue?" (or something to that effect). On occasion, however, when publishing a project in Visual Studio, I would get a dialog box that would give me the choice of replacing the folder's contents completely, or simply replacing changed files with newer version.
I much prefer to publish without completely obliterating the folder, because the deployed application creates user files and cache files as it's been used that I don't want to take extra steps to preserve. However, I'm not sure why Visual Studio doesn't always give me this option. Is this a setting somewhere I can change? Is it tied to the version of .NET I'm using?
Any insight is appreciated!
Edit - Followup on 2009-01-20
I still haven't figured this out, but here's some more information.
Here's what the publish function looks like for one ASP.NET project on my Win XP desktop:
And here's what it looks like for a different project on my Vista laptop:
Notice the radio buttons in the second screenshot that allow me to choose to either delete the contents of the folder prior to publishing, or merely to overwrite matching files. I'd like to have these options for every project.
Both computers are running Visual Studio 2008 Professional (version 9.0.30729.1 SP, according to Help->About). The exact same version. And I doubt the OS difference is causing this functionality change. It's got to be a setting somewhere, right? Does anyone know?
John is right, the only difference is one of your projects is a Web Site Project and the other is a Web Application project. You will not see the "convert to web application" option unless you are in a Web Application project. I know... it is very misleading. The reason behind this stems from the the way you convert to a web application project. If you plan on converting it(which can be a real pain in arse, depending on how it is set up) then you need to be aware of a few differences:
In a Web Application project everything is pre-compiled all the codebehind pages will be compiled into a .dll ---- In a Web Site Project nothing in the project is pre-compiled, the compiler will compile everything to ensure it is valid but none of the compiled pages are uploaded. When a user first attempts to access the site each page is compiled into its own dll. This means in a Web Site Project you are able to upload a single codebehind file.
Namespaces - In a Web Application project namespaces are created by default in a Web Site Project they are not. So you may have to spend some time adding them if you plan on converting them.
Project files - you will notice that A Website Project does not have a "cproj" file a Web Application project does.
I have converted a few of these project I find they go fairly smooth as long as there is not a lot of code in the "app_code" folder. You can give it a try and see how easy it is, if it looks like it is going to be a pain, I would suggest FileZilla just FTP it and save yourself some headache.
Good Luck
That dialog is different for Web site projects and Web application projects. In my MVC projects (Web application projects), I see the additional options. In my regular ol' web site projects, I see the first dialog posted.
Not sure if this option will be suitable for you but you could use the copy website function from the solution explorer. Click on the "Copy Website" icon at the top of the solution explorer.
I think the real answer to your question is that you should put your user files and cache files somewhere else.
When publishing a web site Visual Studio is designed to make sure that the target folder contains your web site files, and absolutely nothing else.
Apparently this feature is coming in VS2010 - that's what Vishal Joshi announced at TechEd EMEA in session "PDC307: Microsoft Visual Studio 10: Web Development Futures"
The site has been updated from the site in the updated layer.