I'm about to deploy a site where some functionality is omitted to get the website launched as soon as possible. This means that after the site has been deployed to a live server, some development still needs be done.
I have mainly been used to working on local projects, and have just been playing around with opening the site as a FTP project in VS2012.
This seems to be the way to go, but unfortunately, IntelliSense doesnn't play nice (not all namespaces are recognized) and when re-building the project, it seems as the whole Umbraco project is recompiled (which creates an enormous overhead). And I have not found a way of excluding Umbraco specific folders from the project.
Another thing is that the project is recognized as a WebForms project and not MVC4, for which I would also like a fix :)
Any suggestions on how to carry on from here? Suggestions and best practices is very welcome!
Related
I'm developing a very simple website in ASP.Net Core 1.1, and all of the changes that I had made to the CSS settings are loaded correctly when I run the site in IIS Express. So I decided I needed a hosting environment so that I can show my client the site, and purchased an Azure account. Now, after publishing the site to Azure, the site looks like this. It's apparent that the CSS styles are not loading and I cannot figure out why.
I've tried the suggestions from here, and here and haven't had any success. Deleting the _.min.css files hasn't helped and my project doesn't even have a BundleConfig.cs file so I'm not sure where to put the BundleTable.EnableOptimizations code. Any help would be appreciated.
P.S.: The Azure hosting was primarily for me to send the link to my client for him to see the site and also for a few other test purposes. It will not be the production environment. Is this an issue specific to Azure? If so, then is it safe to say that I won't have this issue with another web host?
So, I was told that Azure and IISE were referencing two different things. Sure enough, Azure was pulling from site.min.css while IISE was pulling from site.css. After searching for the reason behind this I stumbled upon this article on bundling and Minification, and followed the instructions starting at “using bundling and minification in a project.
After the build, I redeployed to Azure and the site worked fine. Azure is still pulling from site.min.css, so I’m still not sure whether or not that’s part of the problem. But the bundling extension seemed to fix everything up.
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.
Currently, I'm maintaining an older ASP.NET website. In the solution, there exists 5 C# projects which build to assemblies as well as the development server's web directory. Normally, I do whatever work needs to be done (adding pages, making changes to existing projects, etc), build the projects (the current output path is my development server's wwwroot\bin\ directory) and if all is well, I open Windows Explorer and drag either .aspx or .dll files from the dev server to the production server. It's that last step that I'm wondering if there is a better way of doing. Does anyone have a different way of doing things where you don't have to leave Visual Studio to push updates?
You should add a Web Deployment Project, that´s (in my opinion) the easiest/best way to deploy a Asp.net app
Here´s an interesting article from the MSDN Magazine. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163448.aspx
ASP.NET Web Site Precompilation Overview would seem to be what you are wanting, yes?
Otherwise, there are web deployment projects for VS 2005 and web deployment projects for VS 2008 if you want a couple of alternatives depending on which version of Visual Studio you use.
How old is older? Are you using ASP.Net 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0, as those are what I'd consider older, but then I've been doing web development for over a decade.
You might want to consider creating a build script and a deployment script. You can look at using either Nant or MS Build, which are popular, or simply go with a batch file approach.
Some of the reasons I suggest going with scripts are:
1. You'll never forget to push that one file that you added
2. Either your build script or your deploy script should create a copy of all the artifacts need for deployment. This way, if you push out a bad build and need to roll back for whatever reason, guess what, you have a working copy tucked away somewhere.
3. Your scripts can run the installers (if you created a setup project) or they can simply copy out the files to the correct location, so that you don't have to have your dev box pointing to the right folder.
4. Sometimes you need to make changes to the configuration before you deploy... your scripts can also do this for you.
In general automating the whole process just makes it easier, faster and repeatable.
I'm a total newbie to SVN and haven't been able to find an answer for the following situation.
I have an ASP .NET 2.0 web app that I am developing. I am using my local IIS as the development web server (i.e. not the Visual Studio web development server). My development environment is VS2005, Vista, IIS7, TortoiseSVN / AnkhSVN. VisualSVN is installed on the server.
My .sln files and class libraries, etc. are located in the **C:\Localsource\Projects\ProjectName** folder, and my .aspx files are in my **C:\inetpub\wwwroot\ProjectName** folder.
I can set up the repository for **C:\Localsource\Projects\ProjectName** fine, but can't think of a way to set it up for the IIS folder as well in the same repository.
What's the best way for dealing with this development environment in SVN?
Many thanks,
Ant
In a solution in Visual Studio you can have a class library project which is usually in a directory underneath the .sln file.
In this case he also has a web project within the solution but NOT underneath the .sln file in the file directory structure.
He will be attaching to this project via HTTP not via local file path.
IIS will manage this as http://localhost/webapp and by default will place it in c:\inetpub\wwwroot\webapp. The files in webapp folder will not be in the repo as they arent in the hierachy of the solution and the class library. This is his question how to sort it out.
My answer is to move http://localhost/webapp to point to a folder that is underneath the .sln file and adjacent to the class library directory then it can all go in the repo.
Seperating the class library and the the webapp is best practice to aide code re-use and decoupling the logic from the web site.
Can you not just point IIS to C:\Localsource\Projects\ProjectName and set the permissions?
Hmmm - Good point. It was set up like this when I got here, and Visual Studio always creates websites in the wwwroot folder, so I assumed wwwroot was just where they had to go.
Maybe I'll have to think about doing a little rearranging...
Thanks!
The IIS folder is not the output of the code base it is part of the application. It's not CGI output or anything but actually the scripts to run the app!
This is the .aspx pages that will have user controls and HTML to actually run the application. Its part of the applciation but split away from VS Studio solution.
The easiest way is to have a solution and then C:\Localsource\Projects\ProjectName\WEBSITE.
Point IIS at that folder as well.
OK, I may be being stupid here but.. Why do you need to add the IIS folder (i.e. the output of the code base) to your repository?
Update
I think I should clarify this a bit more.. What I mean to say is I am not sure why the ASPX is seperate from the project anyway? What is wrong with an Web Project and n Class Library Projects in a Solution, added to your repository.. You then publish on each new release..
If it is simply a case of "it might be easier to roll back the published output" then so be it, I was just curious as I have not seen many people actually work that way.
Deployment of solutions in this structure would be a lot easier as well..
I think you might want to separate this into two problems, following this recommendation from Dillorscroft.
First, with regard to the material on your development server that is published to the production site, I think you need version control for that. First so you can roll back any page, and you can also decide when you have a stable level of the development site that you want to extract to production. (I would get that from the source control system into a site image and then synchronize that image with the production site.)
So, for the first part, we are talking about versioning the web pages and all of the custom server-side material that supports the web site.
Secondly, With regard to the development of components that are used on the site, they need their own development projects, since it is the result that goes to the development site, not all of the source, libraries, etc. that the component is built with. So these will have their own project development tree (think of it as if you were building a library that is to be used by other development projects, although in this case the other projects are web pages). So the only thing that should show up in IIS is the "deployed" component to the development site.
There seem to be three critical questions for you:
How development of tests that need to go against the web site is handled and where that is version controlled (assuming they do not belong on the web site itself)
How easily you can arrange to make sure that all content on the development web site is kept under version control and checked-in and -out appropriately. (This has to do with the tools you use to edit web pages and other server-side gunk other than components developed off to the side.)
Easily taking developed components from the projects that produce them to the development site and have them be checked-in there.
My solution to (2) and to version control of the development web site is to use Visual Source Safe integration with IIS and FrontPage extensions that places the site under version control. Components produced from other development projects are mapped to the server project by VSS sharing.
For SVN, I speculate that (1) you want to see if there is an SVN adapter that IIS will recognize as an external source-control system and, either way, (2) have a discipline that takes delivery of components from their construction projects into the overall web site project.
Rob,
Why do you consider an .aspx file an output of the code base?
It is part of the code base. It's not an output after compilation for instance.
Just wondered?
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.