We are currently maintaining a Perl web application and we are slowly trying to bring it into the modern age.
We want to be able to build our application so that when a new developer comes along we can just give them a copy of the build and they can have a local copy of the application with minimal fuss.
Does anyone have any experience of creating a build for a legacy web application that could offer some pro tips?
Start by authoring an ordinary CPAN distribution, Perl modules go into lib etc. This is described in perlnewmod and the documents referenced in its section titled See also.
Use Module::Build as the build system. You extend it for the extra stuff you want to install, for example template files, this is described in the cookbook.
Related
I'm developing a WPF application that I deploy with ClickOnce to a network share on the intranet from which clients can install it.
I need to make sure that the user can't modify any of the application files (especially DLLs and the main executable) on their machine. That is, if any of the application files have changed, the application should refuse to run. I was under the impression that, when using ClickOnce, this was available out of the box and that the application would refuse to start if the file hashes didn't match the manifest.
However, I tried to manually replace the executable or a DLL with a slightly different version after installation and the application still ran fine (executing the modified code).
Does ClickOnce provide what I'm looking for?
How can I enable the functionality?
I'm using a level 2 StartSSL code-signing certificate to sign the application manifest if this matters.
P.S.: just to be sure: I'm talking about the installed application files, not the installation files.
You can sign AND strong name each one of DLLs to prevent tampering but then, doing so has its own pain points when it comes to upgrades and distribution in general. Note that even doing so, doesn't entirely prevent someone from injecting code into your running process. It's a sticky subject.
I recommend going thru this question which already discusses these points in detail. Does code-signing without strong-naming leave your app open to abuse?
I think it will be a fairly manual process.
Doesn't look like the VS2013 deployment tools handle code obfuscation but they do support signing and app permissions. Start with that, then you might have to get the generated manifest as a starting point to build your own with obfuscated assemblies.
MS docs break it into 3 steps: 1. obfuscate, 2. build manifest, 3. manually publish
Here is what MS docs say...
Securing ClickOnce Applications
Deploying Obfuscated Assemblies
You might want to obfuscate your application by using Dotfuscator to prevent others from reverse engineering the code. However, assembly obfuscation is not integrated into the Visual Studio IDE or the ClickOnce deployment process. Therefore, you will have to perform the obfuscation outside of the deployment process, perhaps using a post-build step. After you build the project, you would perform the following steps manually, outside of Visual Studio:
Perform the obfuscation by using Dotfuscator.
Use Mage.exe or MageUI.exe to generate the ClickOnce manifests and sign them. For more information, see Mage.exe (Manifest Generation and Editing Tool) and MageUI.exe (Manifest Generation and Editing Tool, Graphical Client).
Manually publish (copy) the files to your deployment source location (Web server, UNC share, or CD-ROM).
I'm undecided about CRM at the moment. It's a great tool for the business users but so far for development it's been a bit against the grain. The next problem I need to tackle is how to easily source control javascript used within forms. We use TFS for our source control.
Anyone had an experience or have any ideas on how to do this?
Obvious choice would be to copy and paste the JS in to your source control, but it's also an obvious pain in the rear.
A couple of things that we do in our projects:
We use the Web Resource Utility included with the CRM SDK (actually a modified version of it) to deploy JavaScript web resources to a particular solution. Makes it very easy to keep script files checked in to source control as normal and avoid copying and pasting.
We wrote a custom HTTP Module that we use on local deployments. It intercepts requests for JavaScript libraries and redirects them to a location on local disk. That way, we don't have to actually redeploy the web resources as we test, just the JavaScript files to disk. (Note that this would be unsupported in a production environment. We just do it in our development environments to ease the pain of JavaScript deployment).
I answered a very similar question here - Version Control for Visual Studio projects and MS Dynamics CRM (javascript)
My choice for source control is TFS holding each of the 2011 JScript libraries.
We try to mirror the file structure that Dynamics uses for Web resources in a basic Library project. So version control works as normal, we just don't use the output from the project.
You can also try using the new "CRM Solution" project template (installed from the SDK) and have the ability to deploy from the context menu of the project.
I've had some issues with the template but something to check out.
Hope this helps.
You can take a look on my answer on my own question here.
MS Dynamics CRM 2011 SDK has solutionpackager.exe utility what could split all CRM resources into file tree and you can store them either in git or in tfs.
Any web resource in CRM 2011 is a pain to manage. We just end up doing a lot of copy pasting in and out of TFS 2010 (which has actually caused some problems with poor pastes).
Currently out of the box there isn't an easy way to do it.
Only worry about this if you really need the ability to go back to old versions of web resources. I've found that I don't often have to do this. Remember that the web resources are stored in SQL Server just like they would be if you put them in TFS, so as long as your CRM database is being backed up, you won't lose the web resources. In traditional development, it is important to keep the source in TFS because you can't easily get back to it once you compile and release. With CRM development, your web resources are mostly HTML or JavaScript, so you can always get at the source.
If you really need version control, why not build a quick little console app that downloads all customizations every night and stores that zip file in TFS? True, it wouldn't be as easy to get at older versions, but you should gain a lot of productivity by not having to manually keep TFS in sync. This also has the benefit of storing all customizations in TFS, not just web resources.
Silverlight is the obvious exception here - I would definitely store Silverlight web resource source code in TFS, because it is a "compiled" web resource. You are already in Visual Studio, so TFS is a natural fit anyway.
Hope that helps!
Is it a good or a bad idea to package and deploy web applications in rpm format. Did anyone experiment with this. ?
Thank you
It is a good idea, especially if your application relies on specific packages/libraries. It is also relatively easy to do, since httpd config usually just scans /etc/http.d on RPM-based distributions.
It is also much easier for people to try out your application versus having to go through a usually multi-step install HOWTO's.
You can look at RedHat's webalizer RPM for a sample on how to package web apps as RPM's.
When deploying a ready to use erlang application I don't want the user to
Find the right erl release on the
internet.
Install the erl vm
unzip and decide a location for the beam files (with the application)
read a readme
modify anything that even looks like a config file
I have a couple of ideas of what could be a way but I would like to get some input.
SAE (stand-alone Erlang) used to be a pretty good solution for situations like you describe, but that no longer seems to be maintained.
Although I've never used it myself, CEAN seems like it might come close to what you want: it offers a self-extracting installer (though not for Windows at present) and the option to deliver a customized minimal Erlang framework.
There is also Erlware.
At our core we host public
repositories containing reliable
Erlang OTP-compliant applications. Our
repositories enable developers to use
software written by the Erlang
community and to publish and
distribute their own software.
It's more backend orient though, so not a complete solution.
The reltool application first released with Erlang R13B02 is aimed at solving this issue. Note that it is currently a beta release (version 0.5).
What are the recommendations for including your compiler, libraries, and other tools in your source control system itself?
In the past, I've run into issues where, although we had all the source code, building an old version of the product was an exercise in scurrying around trying to get the exact correct configuration of Visual Studio, InstallShield and other tools (including the correct patch version) used to build the product. On my next project, I'd like to avoid this by checking these build tools into source control, and then build using them. This would also simplify things in terms of setting up a new build machine -- 1) install our source control tool, 2) point at the right branch, and 3) build -- that's it.
Options I've considered include:
Copying the install CD ISO to source control - although this provides the backup we need if we have to go back to an older version, it isn't a good option for "live" use (each build would need to start with an install step, which could easily turn a 1 hour build into 3 hours).
Installing the software to source control. ClearCase maps your branch to a drive letter; we could install the software under this drive. This doesn't take into account non-file part of installing your tools, like registry settings.
Installing all the software and setting up the build process inside a virtual machine, storing the virtual machine in source control, and figuring out how to get the VM to do a build on boot. While we capture the state of the "build machine" with ease, we get the overhead of a VM, and it doesn't help with the "make the same tools available to developers issue."
It seems such a basic idea of configuration management, but I've been unable to track down any resources for how to do this. What are the suggestions?
I think the VM is your best solution. We always used dedicated build machines to get consistency. In the old COM DLL Hell days, there were dependencies on (COMCAT.DLL, anyone) on non-development software installed (Office). Your first two options don't solve anything that has shared COM components. If you don't have any shared components issue, maybe they will work.
There is no reason the developers couldn't take a copy of the same VM to be able to debug in a clean environment. Your issues would be more complex if there are a lot of physical layers in your architecture, like mail server, database server, etc.
This is something that is very specific to your environment. That's why you won't see a guide to handle all situations. All the different shops I've worked for have handled this differently. I can only give you my opinion on what I think has worked best for me.
Put everything needed to build the
application on a new workstation
under source control.
Keep large
applications out of source control,
stuff like IDEs, SDKs, and database
engines. Keep these in a directory as ISO files.
Maintain a text document, with the source code, that has a list of the ISO files that will be needed to build the app.
I would definitely consider the legal/licensing issues surrounding the idea. Would it be permissible according to the various licenses of your toolchain?
Have you considered ghosting a fresh development machine that is able to build the release, if you don't like the idea of a VM image? Of course, keeping that ghosted image running as hardware changes might be more trouble than it's worth...
Just a note on the versionning of libraries in your version control system:
it is a good solution but it implies packaging (i.e. reducing the number of files of that library to a minimum)
it does not solves the 'configuration aspect' (that is "what specific set of libraries does my '3.2' projects need ?").
Do not forget that set will evolves with each new version of your project. UCM and its 'composite baseline' might give the beginning of an answer for that.
The packaging aspect (minimum number of files) is important because:
you do not want to access your libraries through the network (like though dynamic view), because the compilation times are much longer than when you use local accessed library files.
you do want to get those library on your disk, meaning snapshot view, meaning downloading those files... and this is where you might appreciate the packaging of your libraries: the less files you have to download, the better you are ;)
My organisation has a "read-only" filesystem, where everything is put into releases and versions. Releaselinks (essentially symlinks) point to the version being used by your project. When a new version comes along it is just added to the filesystem and you can swing your symlink to it. There is full audit history of the symlinks, and you can create new symlinks for different versions.
This approach works great on Linux, but it doesn't work so well for Windows apps that tend to like to use things local to the machine such as the registry to store things like configuration.
Are you using a continuous integration (CI) tool like NAnt to do your builds?
As a .Net example, you can specify specific frameworks for each build.
Perhaps the popular CI tool for whatever you're developing in has options that will allow you to avoid storing several IDEs in your version control system.
In many cases, you can force your build to use compilers and libraries checked into your source control rather than relying on global machine settings that won't be repeatable in the future. For example, with the C# compiler, you can use the /nostdlib switch and manually /reference all libraries to point to versions checked in to source control. And of course check the compilers themselves into source control as well.
Following up on my own question, I came across this posting referenced in the answer to another question. Although more of a discussion of the issue than an aswer, it does mention the VM idea.
As for "figuring out how to build on boot": I've developed using a build farm system custom-created very quickly by one sysadmin and one developer. Build slaves query a taskmaster for suitable queued build requests. It's pretty nice.
A request is 'suitable' for a slave if its toolchain requirements match the toolchain versions on the slave - including what OS, since the product is multi-platform and a build can include automated tests. Normally this is "the current state of the art", but doesn't have to be.
When a slave is ready to build, it just starts polling the taskmaster, telling it what it's got installed. It doesn't have to know in advance what it's expected to build. It fetches a build request, which tells it to check certain tags out of SVN, then run a script from one of those tags to take it from there. Developers don't have to know how many build slaves are available, what they're called, or whether they're busy, just how to add a request to the build queue. The build queue itself is a fairly simple web app. All very modular.
Slaves needn't be VMs, but usually are. The number of slaves (and the physical machines they're running on) can be scaled to satisfy demand. Slaves can obviously be added to the system any time, or nuked if the toolchain crashes. That'ss actually the main point of this scheme, rather than your problem with archiving the state of the toolchain, but I think it's applicable.
Depending how often you need an old toolchain, you might want the build queue to be capable of starting VMs as needed, since otherwise someone who wants to recreate an old build has to also arrange for a suitable slave to appear. Not that this is necessarily difficult - it might just be a question of starting the right VM on a machine of their choosing.