In my line of work I'm often retrieving very specific versions of crusty ASP.NET web apps from their long-forgotten repositories, making minor changes and then recompiling.
A major annoyance in this process is having to create a virtual directory for every web project that I need to recompile. I don't have any problems with the process, but it's tedious and still a very manual process on .NET 1 projects.
Is there a fairly simple way to recompile the binaries of the csproj without setting up a new virtual directory?
Edit: I don't mind using command line tools, or external solutions, as long as they're fairly simple and straightforward.
I'm not sure there's any other way unless you can convert the project to vs 2005.
I ran into a similar issue when i was dealing with a web project that i needed to manage a few branches that all wanted the same virtual directory. I wrote this small app that does some switching of the virtual for you automagically.
I have added on to the app to make it more functional (supporting more than just one project at once)... and i'm sorry to say i have never update the code on the blog. This might just serve as a good starting place for you to manage your virtual directories.
I will try to get the latest code up on the blog soon and i will update this post when i do.
but in the meantime check out the source here
ps. i know this version of the code needs to be cleaned up this version was just a proof of concept.
Related
I have always used the express versions of Visual Studio for my Asp.Net projects. In the past, I would use a basic FTP synchronizer to push updated files (*.vb) to our server, then the changes would just show up on the website instantly. Now, for some reason, when I make changes to our *.vb files, they are not being reflected on the server after I synchronize over ftp, unless I build the project first. In addition, for our .Net 4.0 project, VS 2015 14.0.23107 is adding the following directories, with tons of stuff inside of them:
/.vs
/My Project
/Obj
There are loads of files within these directories which I have no idea what they do, and for some reason our project has taken on a completely different behavior. Now when we try to synchronize over FTP, there are a ton more files, and it seems that changing the actual underlying source doesn't work. We have to synchronize all the other files in the above directories, then we can see the changes.
Is this a new way they are doing things, or is this because VS is now free and we are getting a better version where we have to "publish" not "synchronize?"
Is there a way to go back to the simple way of doing things, where we just have a plain directory with our source files and sync them over to the server? Should we not do it this way? If not, what method should we be using and what files should we be pushing to the server?
I'll just promote my comment to an answer. There are several aspects of this question:
Use publish, this feature is already for long available in Visual Studio and works well. There is plenty of ways to customize it and it supports a lot of technologies, including FTP. It's also more convenient, systematic and reliable way of deployment than manually copying files to your FTP. You can also share your publishing configuration among developers and store several of them. No loss here.
I don't quite get why would you like to copy the source (.vb) files to the server. What you would usually like to achieve is to get compiled DLL's + resources copied to your server, and source files 'secure' on developers machines. You can compile your sources on the server if you really need it, but then just plug it into a source control, use ms build etc. Anyway, build/publish actions are there to prepare the deployment files for you, manual copying is pure bad.
For the new folders:
Obj is everything but new, its created to store some resources, crap, more here: What is obj folder generated for?
.vs stores user specific settings, and you should ignore it as well as obj folder, more here:
Should I add the Visual Studio 2015 .vs folder to source control?
My Project is most likely your own folder, nothing related to VS.
To sum up, as long as you use asp 4, 4.5 nothing changes. Only the 5.0 intruduces a bit different rules for deployment. Most of the problems you get are easily solved using the right tools (Publish). It will know what files to ship (binaries + resources included in project) and what to ignore (source files, caches, crap). It's convenient, less error-prone and can do much more for you.
Definitely, use "Publish" option (right click on your web application at solution explorer, under Run/Build options), thus you can update your server site with those files created on Publish. As Mikus mentioned, you DON'T need vb files on your published site, you just need dll's and resources (images, js, css, resx, e.g.).
Regards, hope it helps.
Use the Publish Option which is provided by Visual Studio.
This will compile your project and you can then host this in your reliant manner.
I personally host on IIS and considering I have no data stored locally I can publish directly to the published path on the IIS Server.
The Publish tool is very simple and only takes a few minutes.
Forgive my ignorance, though I am new to this. I've search a lot but can't seem to come to a definite conclusion, so any information is appreciated.
So to the question: Is there a built-in configuration for web site publishing in MS Visual Studio called "Release"? The reason I'm asking is that some have told me it is, but I can only find the "Debug" configuration in Visual Studio.
So, if there's supposed to be a "Release" as well, how can I get it or can I manually add a new equivalent?
Go to the Solution Explorer (CTRL+W+S), then find your project. Right click on it and go to its properties. Find the Build tab. The top of the window will contain the active build configuration for your project. You can then change from debug (the default) to release.
By default, projects have two configurations: release and debug. You can make more, but first learn more about those two. The most important differences are explained in the question linked by Nacho in the comments. Good luck and happy codding.
edit: Web Site projects don't have the Release configuration available, but it makes no difference since they are not compiled. Web Application projects, on the other hand, do get compiled and have both configurations available.
It's been a long time (~4,5 years), but I think I might have used a Web Deployment Project for a Web Site Project once, for changing config files (replacing by copying from another directory) (xml node: WebConfigReplacementFiles)
I used Web Deployment Projects before web.config transforms where invented. (If you are interested in web.config transforms, check out my tutorial for VS 2010: http://www.tomot.de/en-us/article/5/asp.net/how-to-use-web.config-transforms-to-replace-appsettings-and-connectionstrings)
Another useful link might be: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/377y0s6t(v=vs.100).aspx
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.
So, I have an asp.net mvc app that is being worked on by multiple developers in differing capacities. This is our first time working on a mvc app and my first time working with .NET. Our app does not have a lot of unit tests in it...
The problem we are having is trying to keep each other from overwriting each others changes. For example:
Two developers are both working on the app and Jon (not his real name) makes a change to a controller, compiles a new dll, and checks in his stuff (both the controller and the dll.) Our svn system automatically updates our DEV server with the changes that Jon just made.
Clyde (also not a real name) also makes a change right about the same time but did not update the code with Jon's change and commits a new dll thereby "forgetting" about Jon's change.
This happens a lot. The question I'm asking is more of a workflow question - how do we solve this issue? Is it just a matter of Clyde needing to be more careful? Can anybody recommend a decent process for us to use?
You don't check in the DLL's. Exclude the bin folder from Subversion in its entirety. It's the .cs files that matter and that will be compiled locally on every computer that checks out the code from Subversion. If your deployment script don't compile the code but is just a simple xcopy statement, you need to either introduce csc to the script or implement a continuous integration system like TeamCity.
The issue you describe is already handled by subversion. When Clyde tries to commit his changes subversion will detect the conflict and offer him the possibility to merge his changes.
This is exactly the scenario that Subversion and other version control systems are designed to avoid. When Clyde checks in, he should get an "out-of-date" error and his commit should fail, thereby forcing him to update his working copy and get Jon's changes before he can commit his own.
Check out the SVN video tutorials from dime casts. These show you best practices like how to setup your project, and how to do the "check in dance" which will avoid the situation you ran into/
http://www.dimecasts.net/Casts/ByTag/SVN
I've used Subersion and .NET application together. Basically what we learned was that you should always do an update to your working copy before making a checkin. That way, any changes made by other developers will be brought down to your working copy and any merge conflicts will be quickly known to you. You can then fix the merge conflicts, checkin and continue to work. If your second developer then updates their working code, the first developers merged code will be brought down and the process will be repeated.
Hope this helps.
ignore the folders bin and obj, but we have bin and Bin.
use svn:ignore
[bB]in
[oO]bj
*.suo
Is it possible to exclude a folder in a web project from being published? We've got some documentation and scripts that included in a particular project folder, and are added to the project, but when I do a VS publish, I don't want them to go up to the production server.
I know they shouldn't be in the project, but I thought I'd find a workaround before I try to convince the owner to modify the way he's doing things.
Old question, but I found if I mark the folder as hidden in Windows Explorer, it doesn't show/publish in your solution.
This is good for example to stop original photoshop images being included in uploads which aren't used and are big. Anything more complex though you'll probably want to write your own publish tool.
This doesn't answer your question, exactly, but my feeling is that unless you are a single developer publishing to a server, you would be better off doing builds on a dedicated workstation or server using MSBuild (or some other building and deploying solution) directly (and thereby would be able to very granularly control what goes up to production). MSBuild can not only build, but using some extensions (including open source types), it can also deploy. Microsoft has a product called MSDeploy in beta, and that might be an even better choice, but having no experience with it, I cannot say for certain.
In our situation, we have a virtual workstation as a build box, and all we have to do is double click on the batch file that starts up an MSBuild project. It labels all code using VSS, gets latest version, builds the solution, and then deploys it to both servers. We deploy exactly what we want to deploy and nothing more. We're quite happy with it.
The only downside, if it could be considered a downside, is that at least one of us had to learn how to use MSBuild. VS itself uses MSBuild.
For the files you don't want to go, loop at the properties and set the 'Copy to Output Directory' to 'Do not copy'
This option is not available for directories, however.
Can you not exclude them from the project through visual studio to stop them being published. They will the still exist in the filesystem
The only way that you can do this to my knowledge would be to exclude it from the project, do the publish, then re-include it in the project. That can be an issue.
There are probably much better ways to solve this problem but when we publish a build for our dev servers, we'll run a batch file when the build is complete to remove the un-needed folders and web.configs (so we don't override the ones that are already deployed).
According to http://www.mahingupta.com/mahingupta/blog/post/2009/12/04/AspNet-website-Exclude-folder-from-compilation.aspx you can just give the folder the "hidden" attribute in windows explorer and it won't publish. I tested this and it works for me.
Seems like a straightforward solution for quick and dirty purposes, but I don't think it will carry through our version control (mercurial).
Select all the files that should not be published.
Go to Properties
Set
Build Action -> None
Have to repeat the process for each sub-directory.