I am working to setup a build server using Team City to build and deploy asp.net web applications to a staging site with transformed web.configs automatically. Everything is working except that the code that ends up on the website (the aspx files) have the HTML in them when you open them in notepad.
Before all of this I was using web deployment projects with websites, and the code was compiled. If you opened one after it was deployed, it said it was a marker file.
I have tried some tutorials on how this process should work, but the code always ends up in an editable state (the html).
My question is:
What do I need to do to get MSBUILD from the command line to ultimately have precompiled code on the webs server?
Any suggestions, links, pointers, or ideas would be very helpful to me.
You need to invoke the aspnet_compiler tool to do this. There are some limitations or complications depending on exactly what you need to do for things like strong-naming. The MSDN article here has pointers.
I used to have MSBuild project steps that did this, but we decided to drop precompiling because our clients want to integrate our product into their internal portals, and precompiling made things complicated for them.
Are you using MS Web Deploy? I use it regularly for automated deployments from my Team City Build server to dev, staging, QA, etc. And I'm transforming configurations as well.
If you want to check out this alternative you can follow the excellent guide by Troy Hunt:
http://www.troyhunt.com/2010/11/you-deploying-it-wrong-teamcity_26.html
Related
Our development team has used aspnet_compiler as part of our build process for years to verify our website build. I have noticed that when the process encounters a precompile error, it immediately shuts down. Sometimes, if you fix the issue and restart, it will fail again with another unrelated error that actually existed the first time. I am just wondering if there is a way for it to not "die" and continue the precompile and then list ALL errors that it finds so we don't have to do the iterative process of fixing the errors one at a time.
I have looked at this documentation: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/msbuild/aspnetcompiler-task?view=vs-2019 but nothing there seems like it supplies what I am looking for.
do you mean that VS shutdowns, or the external command line build process shuts down? One real problem area is the .net folder called app_code. While you can do a build->compile?
You note that code in that folder does NOT get compiled when you do this. It is only compiled by the build process. Even during debugging, you note that compile errors are not seen (or caught) unless you run (try) the site. As a result? I don't use that folder anymore. The 2nd huge problem is royslen editor code. I have started using that ability's for strings to span multiple lines in - really nice for in-line sql.
However, I find then if you let the web site build, it does NOT support + see and allow such Rosylen formatted code. (so upon run of the site, I get errors). (this might well be due to the web site running IIS 2016 - too old for that new code formatting support (at least in vb.net it is).
So, all I did was create my OWN folder for code and NOT use the .net one ().
Note that you create the folder, but remember for EACH code module, or class you drop into that folder? You have to individual set each to be compiled. (it is the default), but be careful if you import code via add. So you see (and want) to use this option:
So, I of course don't want the source included - and I don't require that since this is a web applicaiton vs a web site.
Thus, I don't get/see/have any runtime compile of my code by the web site compiler process - it all done during the build and even debug process in VS.
And then their is the build for a web site publish. Thus during a deploy build (and publish), I don't get any surprises either.
In other words, the GREAT advantange of a web site applcation is you don't let the web site comile code for you.
You do have to mark the code module as per above.
As a result, this folder behaves like any web form with code behind. The standard debug and build process during development will thus compile all my code - and catach errors.
If you use the built in (and special) folder app_code, then such code only compiles WHEN you run the site, and worse it is the web site that does this compile - NOT VS.
(but of course you publish build process ALSO does this compile!!!).
I need (want) a regular build + compile during the development process to catch and compile all that code (else debugging, and worse compiling means you only can find out issues at web site run time - and that's way too late for my tastes).
So, I don't bother with app_code anymore at all. Now I am lucky, since I am creating (using) a web site application, as opposed to a asp.net web site. (and yes, there is a massive difference).
Asp.net web site = each page and code behind will compile on demand. This choice is perferred for two big reasons:
First, you can update one web page (and code)- deploy that one web page + code. The web server will figure this out - and re-compile that one page on demand. This makes updates and maintains of the site OH SO VERY much easier.
And it also means in most cases that the whole site can be published to a sub-site folder on the hosted web server. And in fact most really cheap low cost web site hosting MUST use this option (web site applications in most cases can't be published to those lower cost .net hosting sites). (thus use web sites, not web site applications).
However, if you lucky, and you have FULL use of IIS and a server dedicated to JUST running your web site? Well, then you are MUCH MUCH better off to go with a aps.net web site application. And this also means you can say setup custom logon providers, and also configure things like re-direction or things like a custom web handier. In effect, this choice means that you as a developer not only have full use of the base starting page, but can directly change/configure the web server to your liking. This includes the base web config.
This choice is often not avaible on lower cost hosting plans. it requires that you have full IIS services, and IIS services is running your whole site, and the base starting page is your site. (you can publish to root on web hosting, but you still using THEIR EXISTING copy of IIS services, and you can't control things like creating a custom authneticaion (logon) provider. And you also can't create re-directs (custom one).
However, in both cases/choices app_code folder behaves like a compile on demand folder. Thus bugs and issues in that folder will thus not be found until you run the web site, or do a full deploy that then does the full site build. and as noted, you can't use Rosylen eiditor souce code features, since the web compiler might be a few verisons old. You be running the SAME .net version, but the older compiler does not support source code formatting with the new Rosylen editor features.
Since a web site application will compile everything (whole site) in your application down to a single .dll (and of course referenced libraries), then then you don't have on-demand occurring by the web site compiler (after you deploy). Of course the publish wizard does have options to combine all those .dll's into one - not a big deal either way.
So, the one exception is app_code. So I just stopped using it, and I see little reason to use that special .net folder anyway.
So, it was never clear if VS is shutting down, or your build process is seeing errors not being caught during the regular development cycle with VS - if this is your issue, then the above approach should solve the problem for you.
I have a solution with a fair few projects, 3 of them web-based (WCF in IIS / MVC site). When the solution builds, it dumps each of the components of this distributed system in a 'Build' folder. Running the 'configurator' part of the whole output will set up the system in the cloud automatically. It's very neat :) However, the Web Deploy Projects are a major pain. They "build" (i.e. deploy) every, single, time I build - even when no changes have been made to their respective projects.
Changed a single line of code? Look forward to waiting around a minute for the 3 web projects to redeploy.
[These projects are VERY straightforward at the moment - two have a single .svc and one .ashx file - the other is an MVC app with ~5 views]
I realise I can change solution configurations to not 'build' them, but I've been doing that and it's very easy to log on the next day and forget about it, and spend a couple of hours tracking down bugs in distributed systems due to something simply having not been built.
Why I use Web Deploy Projects? Well, because I need all pages + binaries from the web project. The build output for the project itself is the 'bin' folder, so no pages. The entire project folder? It has .cs, .csproj and other files I don't want included.
This will be building on build servers eventually, but it's local at the moment. But I want a quick way of getting the actual output files from the web project to my target folder. Any ideas?
Not sure if this will help in your situation, (plug for own project coming up), but I am working on a project to help ease IIS deployments:
https://github.com/twistedtwig/AutomatedDeployments
The idea being you can use config files for IIS (app Pool, applications and websites) to automate the creation and update of sites locally (dev machines) or remotely (test and production machines).
It is still a work in progress but is ready to be used in production systems.
using the package creation as a post build step might get you closer to what you want, (don't believe it includes all the extra files), but that would still build it each time, (although if code hasn't changed it should not rebuild unless you choose rebuild all projects).
In the end I created a utility/tool which, given a project file, XCOPYies the project folder for the web project to a target location, then looks in said project file and deletes anything that doesn't have Build Action set to Content. Very quick and effective.
I know it is still in RC but VS2012 does have a neat feature when doing publish that it detects the changes and publishes only those. Might be something a little deeper down in the build where it does an automatic publish too.
You can take a look to the Octopus project: http://octopusdeploy.com/
Deployment based on nuget packages.
Just wondering what is the best option for deploying an ASP.Net Website.At the moment I just place the code in a folder on server and create a virtual directory on IIS referring to this folder. Then I open the website in VS2008 on the server and build it.Though it works fine for me,I am not sure if I am following the best approach for deployment or not.
Thanks.
There's a wealth of opinion on this across the internet and it is all opinion. To an extent it's down to you and your team (if you have one), if your approach is working for you then I don't see any huge reason to change but I would suggest that you at least have a staging site where you can deploy the code for user testing before it's deployed to production.
That said, running VS on the server isn't great (and means you need another VS license so could be a waste) and as VS includes a Publish option anyway, it's rather redundant. I use publish for the smaller sites and it works a fine.
Publish from inside VS is a pretty powerful tool as it lets you do web.config substitution. Check out the Hanselman talk Web Deployment Made Awesome: If You're Using XCopy, You're Doing It Wrong
You have several options which are preferable to running Studio on the server.
Depending on your team size, you could:
publish right from VS
continuous integration, check out Cruise Control for info on that
combination of CI and file synch (i.e. CI to test server then xcopy to production)
I'd advocate for CI since you tend to find issues faster that way, but it assumes you are using good version tracking and testing practices. Copying files can have unintended consequences like missed files, outdated files begin retained, etc.
When you deploy that way, anyone who gains access to the web server (which may be beyond your control if it is hosted) can view and possibly even alter your .aspx pages.
One alternative, which you can use from within Visual Studio, is to compile everything into a binary. You do that by choosing menu Build > Publish > uncheck the checkbox "Allow this precompiled site to be updatable." The downside of this, of course, is that even the tiniest change in a page's HTML will require recompiling the code and redeploying it.
It's a clear tradeoff between security and manageability, but precompilation can also aid in performance. Here is one explanation of precompilation alternatives.
You might also consider the suggestions made in Key Configuration Settings When Deploying a Web Application. In a nutshell,
If you are deploying your web application to a machine that you have control over, such as a web server within your company's intranet or a dedicated web server at a web host provider, you can use the element in machine.config to force all applications on the web server to adhere to the recommendations provided above (namely, using a custom error page, disabling output tracing, and not having the auto-compiled code compiled in debug mode). Simply add the following markup to the machine.config file within the <system.web> element:
<deployment retail="true" />
Again, this is a pretty simple change to make.
On a project I work on, we originally built on a dev machine, zipped and copied the contents of the 'bin' directory across. (unzipping, creating a site in IIS etc...)
Later, when we had the time, we went for this approach:
Creating windows installers in VS2008.
This has worked really well, as (literally) anyone is capable of doing the deployment. The real beauty of this, is that you can account for This is just a fancy way of wrapping the process of copying the 'bin' directory across...
Food for thought I hope.
Dave
I have an ASP.NET application in VS2008 that is growing larger and am developing and testing on IIS7, not Cassini/IIS dev, so when I make changes, I publish, run and test.
The publish is taking longer and longer, since there are more and more builds for different projects within the solution. If I want to make simple changes to say an aspx file, instead of publishing, I just modify the published version to avoid the cost of the publish which is a pain.
Is there a better/faster way? Is there something out there that talks about best practices/efficient publish/run/test techniques for VS2008?
Personally, I just created a virtual site in my IIS running on port 1337 (Ye, I'm a geek, but I find that funny :P ), which points to the root of my project. I keep a browser open on localhost:1337, press F6 in VS and then F5 in my browser - no need to publish :)
Works like a charm :)
simply try to separate data, auto generated files and business layers in different projects, so you won't need to build the all solution, just parts of that.
Also make a clone locally, make changes and publish online using repository tools, like GIT or SVN.
Working on an intranet where we have about 20 different web apps - some .net, some classic asp.
Currently each .net app is its own solution. There are advantages to this - we can build & deploy just one app, without affecting other apps, and all the apps share a session - but we can't use master pages, and there are real challenges using localization resources, shared css and js, etc. Build & deployment is done completely manually, which is a real problem.
I'm trying to set up a structure that will allow us to take advantage of VS2008 features, but still have the ability to update one app without affecting the others while still using features like master pages and localization resources, and sharing session between apps (so we can't set up virtual directories for each app).
If I set up single solution that looks like:
/Root
- App_GlobalResources/
- shared
-- masterpages/
-- css/
- App1/
- App2/
...
- AppN/
..
- ClassicASP1/
then the problem is that the build just produces a single DLL (Root.dll) - this will simply not scale to 20+ apps, all of which have different development cycles.
Is it possible (using nant, or some other build tool) to build multiple DLLs? In this case, I'd like to end up with Root.dll (contains the global resources at least) and App1.dll and App2.dll.
Any other suggestions or references I should look at?
I'm not sure you can do what you want to do, sadly. VS tends to make one DLL per unique project (not solution), and it appears you have just one project, so hence, one DLL.
I'd suggest you keep one project (csproj) per application, but use NANT to build them all (ie, one at a time, together, in order), and package them all up for deployment. That way you can do a single point deployment, but still keep the apps seperate.
I'm surprised you can't use master pages in the sub-folders. You'd need to replicate them for each AppN folder, but again - NANT could be used to pull those in from a common place when you build your deployment package.
Writing a build and deployment script takes a while to get right, but I've found that once it's done, it pays for itself very quickly - even if the only payment is your sanity!
There is a solution to this problem. In short, it entails creating a Web Site Project (which can have the masterpage and whatnot) and several subdirectories, each containing a web project. In the main web project you exclude the subdirs from the project. You then add the project files to the solution. This (updated) link tells you all about it.
-Edoode
I would advise using MSBuild instead of Nant. It is more native to visual studio.