Is there anyway i can check if .NET 2.0 is installed without any errors?
The answer here led me seriously astray... i found microsoft's own documentation: .NET Framework 2.0 Redistributable Package Reference: Detecting Installed .NET Framework 2.0
This documentation states:
The Setup.exe bootstrapper should use the following registry key to detect the .NET Framework version 2.0.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\NET Framework Setup\NDP\v2.0.50727
It then verifies the existence of the entry value:
Install (DWORD value = 1)
Note The same registry key will be checked for all versions of Dotnetfx.exe regardless of language. Therefore, if you want to display dialogs in a specific language you should use the corresponding version of Dotnetfx.exe. You do not need to make any changes to the settings.ini file when deciding which version of Dotnetfx.exe to use.
works like a charm... i realize this question and answer is 2 years old or more... but i got here from a search engine, and this is here for the next person who does the same... hope this helps -ck
This blog post describes two options for checking for a .NET installation, as well as retrieving versioning information.
The second option (using CorBindToRuntime) will fail if the .NET installation cannot be loaded. This might help you determine if there are any errors in the install - or at least whether the framework loads properly.
If you're using ClickOnce as your publishing method, you can click on the "Prerequisites" button in the "Publish" tab of the project's properties and check the box for ".Net Framework 2.0". This will make sure that framework is installed before the program installs, and can fetch and install the framework if necessary, too.
In regular VS Setup Projects, right-click on the setup project, chose View->Launch Conditions and add it as a condition. Visual Studio should have added one for you that matches the target platform of the project.
Related
i am currently using Restclient to send request via web api for xamarin, it works well with windows and ios but i doesnt work for andriod , i searched and found a nuget package that will help, called ModernHttpClient,so it changes my code from var httpclient = new HttpClient(); to var httpClient = new HttpClient(new NativeMessageHandler()); but when i install it for the web application i keep getting an error stating the package is not compatible with the project. but it installs ok in android,ios and windows. i tried uninstalling it from the web application but i doesnt work in the code unless it appears in all the project.
so i want to find the reason why the package is not compatible with the web appication or a solution to the Restclient request not working on android .
Unfortunately the product page for modernhttpclient on nuget.org doesn't list any dependencies, but changing the domain name of the URL to use fuget.org instead of nuget.org lists monoandroid, monotouch, portable-net45+winrt45+wp8+wpa81, and xamarin.ios10. Therefore, these are the target frameworks that the package supports.
Another way to check what TFMs (target framework monikers) a package supports is to find/download the nupkg and then open it as a zip file, or use NuGet Package Explorer to look for subfolders under lib/.
You didn't say what target framework your web app is using, but this is where things start getting very complicated and I don't understand it very well. .NET Framework TFMs are compatible with other .NET Framework TFMs of lower versions. Similarly .NET Core TFMs are compatiable with other .NET Core TFMs of lower versions. .NET Standard is a whole other complication. NuGet also supports fallback or alternate TFM compatibility, to allow .NET Core apps to use libraries targetting .NET Framework, but it's a best guess and might fail at runtime (maybe it's even possible to fail to compile, I'm not sure, but restore will succeed with a warning). Given you're not getting the warning, but instead an error, it suggests to me that portable-net45 is not compatible with net45 and therefore probably isn't compatible with whatever target framework you're using with your web app (unless your web app is targetting net40 or earlier).
Having said all that, when I was looking at the package to see which frameworks it targets, I saw that the whole point of the package is to use the platform native HTTP stack, instead of Xamerin's HTTP stack on the mobile platforms. Your web app isn't running on a mobile platform, it's running on either .NET Core or .NET Framework, so you shouldn't need the package. I suggest you use #if, #else and #endif to use NativeMessageHandler only on Android and IOS, and then use the default HTTPClient constructor (or use HttpMessageHandler) on other platforms.
I'm porting a full-framework project to target .NET Core 2.0. It has a call to
var builder = SqlClientFactory.Instance.CreateCommandBuilder();
...
So I've created a new .NET Core project and added a reference to System.Data.SqlClient 4.4.0. Unfortunately it seems that DbProviderFactory.CreateCommandBuilder has not been overriden, so that the call to CreateCommandBuilder always returns null.
I've tried to check if this API was officially available, and on the first sight it seemed so. Because that page says:
Platform: .NET Core
Version: 2.0
Assembly: System.Data.SqlClient, Version=4.3.1.0, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a
and I'm using System.Data.SqlClient 4.4.0 which is higher than 4.3.1.
However, to my next surprise I've found out that typeof(SqlClientFactory).Assembly said System.Data.SqlClient 4.2.0.. I had to learn that assembly and package versions are allowed to be inconsistent. I'm unsure then, why https://apisof.net is telling me Core 2.0. It seems it cannot be trusted.
So, I went to the .NET API Browser who correctly does not list CreateCommandBuilder for SqlClientFactory.
My question is, how can I get the before-mentioned System.Data.SqlClient, Version=4.3.1 assembly? The 4.4 nuget I'm using seems to be the latest one by the time of writing.
The only thing I can think of is to compile my own corefx checkout in order to get a working CreateCommandBuilder. Or start copying bits and pieces like the SqlCommandBuilder. But I don't know if that is a good idea.
Suppose I have a class library which I want to target netstandard1.3, but also use BigInteger. Here's a trivial example - the sole source file is Adder.cs:
using System;
using System.Numerics;
namespace Calculator
{
public class Adder
{
public static BigInteger Add(int x, int y)
=> new BigInteger(x) + new BigInteger(y);
}
}
Back in the world of project.json, I would target netstandard1.3 in the frameworks section, and have an explicit dependency on System.Runtime.Numerics, e.g. version 4.0.1. The nuget package I create will list just that dependency.
In the brave new world of csproj-based dotnet tooling (I'm using v1.0.1 of the command-line tools) there's an implicit metapackage package reference to NETStandard.Library 1.6.1 when targeting netstandard1.3. This means that my project file is really small, because it doesn't need the explicit dependency:
<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
<PropertyGroup>
<TargetFramework>netstandard1.3</TargetFramework>
</PropertyGroup>
</Project>
... but the nuget package produced has a dependency on NETStandard.Library, which suggests that in order to use my small library, you need everything there.
It turns out I can disable that functionality using DisableImplicitFrameworkReferences, then add in the dependency manually again:
<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
<PropertyGroup>
<TargetFramework>netstandard1.3</TargetFramework>
<DisableImplicitFrameworkReferences>true</DisableImplicitFrameworkReferences>
</PropertyGroup>
<ItemGroup>
<PackageReference Include="System.Runtime.Numerics" Version="4.0.1" />
</ItemGroup>
</Project>
Now my NuGet package says exactly what it depends on. Intuitively, this feels like a "leaner" package.
So what's the exact difference for a consumer of my library? If someone tries to use it in a UWP application, does the second, "trimmed" form of dependencies mean that the resulting application will be smaller?
By not documenting DisableImplicitFrameworkReferences clearly (as far as I've seen; I read about it in an issue) and by making the implicit dependency the default when creating a project, Microsoft are encouraging users to just depend on the metapackage - but how can I be sure that doesn't have disadvantages when I'm producing a class library package?
In the past, we've given developers the recommendation to not reference the meta
package (NETStandard.Library) from NuGet packages but instead reference
individual packages, like System.Runtime and System.Collections. The
rationale was that we thought of the meta package as a shorthand for a bunch of
packages that were the actual atomic building blocks of the .NET platform. The
assumption was: we might end up creating another .NET platform that only
supports some of these atomic blocks but not all of them. Hence, the fewer packages you reference, the more portable you'd be. There were also concerns regarding how our tooling deals with large package graphs.
Moving forward, we'll simplify this:
.NET Standard is an atomic building block. In other words, new platforms
aren't allowed to subset .NET Standard -- they have to implement all of it.
We're moving away from using packages to describe our platforms,
including .NET Standard.
This means, you'll not have to reference any NuGet packages for .NET Standard
anymore. You expressed your dependency with the lib folder, which is exactly how
it has worked for all other .NET platforms, in particular .NET Framework.
However, right now our tooling will still burn in the reference to
NETStandard.Library. There is no harm in that either, it will just become
redundant moving forward.
I'll update the FAQ on the .NET Standard repo to include this question.
Update: This question is now part of the FAQ.
The team used to recommend figuring out what the slimmest package set was. They no longer do this, and recommend people just bring in NETStandard.Library instead (in the case of an SDK-style project, this will be done automatically for you).
I've never gotten a totally straight forward answer as to why that was, so allow me to make some educated guesses.
The primary reason is likely to be that it allows them to hide the differences in versions of the dependent libraries that you would otherwise be required to track yourself when changing target frameworks. It's also a much more user friendly system with the SDK-based project files, because you frankly don't need any references to get a decent chunk of the platform (just like you used to with the default references in Desktop-land, especially mscorlib).
By pushing the meta-definition of what it means to be a netstandard library, or a netcoreapp application into the appropriate NuGet package, they don't have to build any special knowledge into the definition of those things as Visual Studio (or dotnet new) sees them.
Static analysis could be used during publishing to limit the shipped DLLs, which is something they do today when doing native compilation for UWP (albeit with some caveats). They don't do that today for .NET Core, but I presume it's an optimization they've considered (as well as supporting native code).
There's nothing stopping you from being very selective, if you so choose. I believe you'll find that you're nearly the only one doing it, which also defeats the purpose (since it'll be assumed everybody is bringing in NETStandard.Library or Microsoft.NETCore.App).
You shouldn't need to disable the implicit reference. All platforms that the library will be able to run on will already have the assemblies that the NETStandard.Library dependency would require.
The .NET Standard Library is a specification, a set of reference assemblies that you compile against that provides a set of APIs that are guaranteed to exist on a know set of platforms and versions of platforms, such as .NET Core or the .NET Framework. It is not an implementation of these assemblies, just enough of the API shape to allow the compiler to successfully build your code.
The implementation for these APIs are provided by a target platform, such as .NET Core, Mono or .NET Framework. They ship with the platform, because they are an essential part of the platform. So there is no need to specify a smaller dependency set - everything's already there, you won't change that.
The NETStandard.Library package provides these reference assemblies. One point of confusion is the version number - the package is version 1.6.1, but this does not mean ".NET Standard 1.6". It's just the version of the package.
The version of the .NET Standard you're targeting comes from the target framework you specify in your project.
If you're creating a library and want it to run on .NET Standard 1.3, you'd reference the NETStandard.Library package, currently at version 1.6.1. But more importantly, your project file would target netstandard1.3.
The NETStandard.Library package will give you a different set of reference assemblies depending on your target framework moniker (I'm simplifying for brevity, but think lib\netstandard1.0, lib\netstandard1.1 and dependency groups). So if your project targets netstandard1.3, you'll get the 1.3 reference assemblies. If you target netstandard1.6, you'll get the 1.6 reference assemblies.
If you're creating an application, you can't target the .NET Standard. It doesn't make sense - you can't run on a specification. Instead, you target concrete platforms, such as net452 or netcoreapp1.1. NuGet knows the mapping between these platforms and the netstandard target framework monikers, so knows which lib\netstandardX.X folders are compatible with your target platform. It also knows that the dependencies of NETStandard.Library are satisfied by the target platform, so won't pull in any other assemblies.
Similarly, when creating a standalone .NET Core app, the .NET Standard implementation assemblies are copied with your app. The reference to NETStandard.Library does not bring in any other new apps.
Note that dotnet publish will create a standalone application, but it won't doesn't currently do trimming, and will publish all assemblies. This will be handled automatically by tooling, so again, trimming dependencies in your library won't help here.
The only place I can imagine where it might help to remove the NETStandard.Library reference is if you are targeting a platform that doesn't support the .NET Standard, and you can find a package from the .NET Standard where all of the transitive dependencies can run on your target platform. I suspect there aren't many packages that would fit that bill.
I have been playing around with the new StateMachine workflow that has been added to Windows Workflow as part of Platform Update 1 (see also). I now want to look at installing what I've created and therefore need to make sure my bootstrapper is up-to-date. In the future, I will be moving to WIX but right now, for the purposes of prototyping, I'm just using a regular Setup and Deployment project and its bootstrap support.
The list of standard pre-requisites does not include the PU1 as an option. Therefore, how can I add support for it?
Update
I found this answer on StackOverflow regarding custom prerequisites, which led me to this article on MSDN, which led me to creating my own pre-requisite. However, I got a new error about mismatched framework requirements. I suspect I need to pick apart the multi-targeting support and the existing .NET framework prerequisite package to see how to make a new prerequisite that will work correctly.
I've had a stab at creating my own bootstrapper packages for this. The results are here to download. Note that these are entirely untested and provided as-is - use at your own risk. However, feedback is welcome. Hopefully Microsoft will provide an official solution.
See How to detect if the .NET Framework Platform Update 1 is installed
is the Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Platform Update 1 - Runtime Update (KB2478063) what you are looking for? See here for the download.
Where can I find information about upgrading Magento Enterprise 1.7. to the latest 1.9. ?
There's no such documentation.
Your general approach:
1. Close production server
2. Backup all DBs and Magento installation
3. Turn off all your custom extensions and themes
4. Delete from HDD: core Magento modules, their layouts, all standard themes and cache.
5. Get 1.9 EE, copy it over your installation
6. Request Magento through http
7. Walk at your site, notice errors and warnings, fix them
8. Check documentation and update for your theme, whether it supports EE 1.9. Turn it on if it supports, otherwise you'll need another theme.
9. Check documentation and updates for all your custom extensions - whether they support 1.9. Turn them on - one by one.
You won't have any problem with upgrading all core DB data - it's made automatically.
You'll have problems with your custom theme, as you'll need new version with support for 1.9. And you'll need to check your custom extensions and upgrade their source and DB data to fit 1.9.
Generally all Magento upgrades work by running the updated code with the old database. The differences will be detected and incorporated automatically on the next page request. Magento keeps track of every module's version number for this reason.
Because there is a chance some modification will break it is best to do this on a new (temporary) site then add the modifications back in gradually. That way the old site is still active and uninterrupted.
I think there is no official documentation. The best way is to figure out what core functionality is used in your customizations and after that look at theirs realization in new version: does it changed or not.
To know what was changed in new version you could check changeslist