When deploying an extension I follow various steps : copy to a temporary folder all the files, copy/paste back and forth the code to the on-line minifiers / obfuscators and create the zip to be uploaded.
It's obvious that this could be simplified with scripting, but my experience on Windows scripting is very limited (most of my experience is server-side). Do I have to look back to the DOS .bat files like in the 90's or is there some cool tool or method I'm not aware?
Besides something like Ant, PHP is great for CLI scripting, even on Windows. Tons of built-in functions, including .zip creation, and thorough docs.
IMO you'd be better off learning PHP (or Python, or anything else) than batch scripting.
I am using Apache Ant for builds. Maybe an overkill, but you can automate everything - minification (with 3rd party java libs), archiving, automatic license header insertion after minification.
I you are not familiar with Ant (or java) then it will be probably hard to jump right into it.
PS. Here is my open souce extension that uses Ant for builds, you can check it out (it copies files into a build folder, minifies, archives)
Related
I am writing a script that pulls files from my development folders and would like to generate an installer with those files.
I would like to if there is a way to create MSI installers using command line.
Yes there is a way. The very flexible Windows Installer XML Toolset. A pretty good tutorial on how to use it is this link
The toolset is here
I think you need to define "create". If you mean "build" or "compile" then yes, pretty much every MSI authoring tool out there supports some form of automated build ... usually even MSBuild support.
If you mean "author" and "build" it's technically possible but not usually advised. Installation is too complicated to be auto magically developed.
Our VB6 application relies heavily on the use of scrrun.dll (Windows Scripting Host). Until a year ago we used to deploy this dll with our installer. Since the Windows Scripitng Host is supposed to be part of Windows we removed the dll from the installation package. However, now and then surface customers who have a non functional scrrun.dll on their system and we have to help them reinstall or reregister it.
So, should we put the scrrun.dll back in the installation package? Should we perform some check on installation? Or should we just live with the fact that we have to provide hands on support to some of our customers to set their systems right?
Don't try to deploy these libraries as part of a normal setup.
Microsoft Scripting Runtime must be installed through the use of a
self-extracting .exe file. For versions of Scripting Runtime mentioned
at the beginning of this article, the only way to distribute it is to
use the complete self extracting .exe file located at the following
locations...
It is possible that some users employ an older anti-malware suite, many of which tried to disable scripting. It is more likely though that some users have managed to break their Windows installation, either themselves or by using applications improperly packaged to try to include these libraries - and blindly remove them from the system on uninstall (cough, cough - Inno).
The libraries involved have been tailored code for some time. This is why the ancient .CAB file was "recalled" long ago. There is no single copy of them intended to run on any random version of Windows, and there are no redist packs for any modern version of Windows. The correct fix is a system restore or repair install.
While this can't be blamed directly on InnoSetup because it is the result of poorly authored scripts it is frustrating enough and common enough that I won't cry when its signature is added to anti-malware suites. There are just too many poorly written examples loose in the wild copy/pasted by too many people.
I spend plenty of time undoing the damage caused by uninstalls of these applications and have grown quite weary of it. Where possible I use isolated assemblies now in self-defense, which helps a lot. Windows File Protection is getting better about preventing abusive action for system files too.
But in general you are much better off avoiding any dependency on scripting tools in an application. There isn't very much that they can do as well as straight code anyway, though it may take some time to write alternative logic.
Eclipse allows to create refactoring scripts through the GUI. I'm looking for a way to generate the script files with inputs from an external module and then automate the refactoring based on them. Would it be possible to do this by a mere jar/class call in a command line (bash script)?
Are there other options to do automated find and replace on large code base which won't break the code? Typically the projects contain all sorts of files java,jsp,css,html,Make,....
As far as I know, Eclipse does not include such an application (look for all definitions of the org.eclipse.core.runtime.applications extension point). It wouldn't be too hard to build one on top of the functionality of org.eclipse.ltk.core.refactoring and org.eclipse.ltk.ui.refactoring.
I have been tasked with looking into our deployments, and seeing where they can be streamlined. Right now we have 4 different configurations (Debug/Dev, Test, Staging, Release) and 4 *.config files. We have a task that will overwrite app/web.config with the appropriate *.config pre-build time based on the active configuration. An MSI is created, and we do a full deployment of the component on release night.
This is not entirely ideal because if we change something in a config file, or fix the spelling in a specific view we have to re-deploy the entire thing. Not to metion that the MSI will occasionally require a reboot. One other option that has been brought up is instead of creating MSIs we could create custom deployment/rollback scripts and have the ability to do incremental release.
Has anyone here tried deployments both ways? What are some of the pros/cons you have found? Is there a third way we haven't thought of?
edit: Just to clarify a few things...We don't deploy to customers. All software is deployed to our servers. (a few sites, and a lot of windows services). We never change things in production. We actually use the built in system within VS to create the MSI, so that part isn't the terrible part. To me it just doesn't make sense to redeploy an entire website if you had to change 1 view. We also have to deploy to multiple servers. Right now that is done by running the MSI on each one.
MSI pros:
Application/service/site gets installed and registered like most other Windows apps, and shows up in Add/Remove programs
Some built-in support for re-installing, upgrading
Has some built-in support for installing Windows services/IIS sites/lower-level Windows features
MSI cons:
Seems really cryptic once you get "under the hood"
Seems more difficult to customize than using a custom script
Script pros:
Easier to customize, although certain steps might require lots of/cryptic scripting (working with IIS, lower-level computer administration)
Don't have to deal with low-level weirdness of MSI
Script cons:
.bat scripting is not the most readable or writable language. (Powershell is better, but then you have to worry about whether Powershell is installed on the target machine).
Low-level operations require a lot of administrative scripting for commit/rollback behavior
No built in support for installing or rolling-back (MSI has some support built-in)
One thing I've come across that helps with MSIs is WiX (http://wix.sourceforge.net/), but even WiX seems pretty cryptic in a lot of ways. We use a combination of MSBuild and WiX to do automated builds and deployment/installs, and it works okay for us.
Overall, I'd probably lean more towards doing MSI/WiX (or other installer toolkit) deployments over scripts. MSIs are the standard way of doing installs on Windows, and once you get it working, you usually don't have to change too much. MSBuild or some other build framework (NAnt, etc.), can be useful for setting up the deployment (renaming files, doing string replacements, etc.), before putting together the final MSI package.
Running a dev company that build web apps for five years we struggled with this and tried a bunch of solutions. Here are a couple tips:
Always replace the entire web directory with your code (except if you have content generated by the web site, like a CMS). It's pretty fast to do this and incremental deployments can introduce phantom bugs if files are left around.
Have your build process (Nant, MSBuild, whatever) mod the .config files for each environment and build for what you push for. Alternately you can use registry settings so that the .config files are the same but that means a dedicated machine for each environment. May or may not be an issue.
Don't make changes in production. If you need to make changes (spelling errors on site) make those top priority to get changed in dev so that you don't overwrite them with the next push.
If you aren't using MSI's then make sure you have a rollback process. Keeping a copy of the site just before you changed it really helps when something unexplained goes sideways during a roll-out.
I don't know that these tips point to MSI or script. I think it's a matter of which you are most comfortable with. MSI's can be hard to customize, but easy to run and manage. Microsoft has lots of tools for managing roll-outs of MSI's across an organization or farm. Scripts may require custom tools and custom tooling or lots of manual work on the production end.
We ran scripts with Nant and a custom deployment harness. These days (VS2008) building deployment packages is much easier.
Your best option is to get a decent MSI builder to do the job with - i'm talking about InstallShield etc (there are a couple, so do look around). While these invariably cost, they can save you a huge amount of time/money/pain further down the track. Having said that, the pain is not totally eliminated, just reduced :)
Anything tricky you need to do can be done as a custom task within the msi - and you can even do this with the setup builder that comes with Visual Studio (if you are using VS).
I have a suggestion for your config files - include all four in the msi, and then have a public property which can be set from the command line. You can then modify that public property to install the appropriate config file (and have the default value of that property set so that the release config gets installed). That way, your customers just use the msi and get the correct config file, but your test team can get their config file by changing the value of the public property; the command line they would use to do the install is this:
msiexec /i "MyInstaller.msi" CONFIG=test
You can do install scripts quite easily, but as already mentioned you also need to script the uninstall. Using install scripts precludes you from getting Windows certification for your product should you look at getting that done. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't use install scripts, they may be the perfect fit for your needs. Alternatively you may look at using a combined script/msi approach by having your scripts run as custom actions from within the msi.
I need to make installation file (.exe), but is that possible with batch script and how?
I made installation with some software (Deployment...) but I need to do that with script. I have all necessary files for my installation.
Is that possible?
Marko
Virtually every tool for building installation packages provides ability to include arbitrary sripts to the installation process. Just inspect your tool for this capability...
Here, we often include sripts in our WIX installations. Of course, user expirience is better when you building installation package nativelly, but in some cases this is acceptable practice (mostly when there is no non-tech users planned).
With a batch script, you will not be able to make a .exe (unless you call a .exe creator from within the batch script!). Why not try Inno Setup or NSIS? ISTool helps in creating Inno Setup scripts with ease and speed.
You can't make an .exe using nothing but a batch script. You can however use a batch script to create the installation specification file(s) and then run that file through an installer creator program like the ones mentioned in the other answers here. Perhaps you could be a bit clearer about what you actually need to do?