Comments
Sort by recent activity
What type of application are your protecting?
Are you doing any global error handling yourself? / comments
What type of application are your protecting?
Are you doing any global error handling yourself?
Any non-recoverable exception will stop the application from continuing (as defined by the framework) - so ExecutionEngineException, StackOverflowException, and OutOfMemoryException.
Also if the exception occurs within the assembly's entry point then you wont be able to continue.
Unfortunately it is not possible to specify in the UI which exceptions to continue from. However, if you have the Pro version of SmartAssembly it is very easy to customise the error reporting template and add a little bit of logic which changes the value of ReportExceptionEventArgs.tryToContinue (as passed to OnReportException) depending on the exception type.
The throw is required unless you apply the ReportExceptionAttribute to the methods (which mean the exception is caught, reported but not propagated). SmartAssembly is designed to preserve the exception handling semantics of your code so that if you have your own try/catch block for a particular exception SmartAssembly will not interfere with it, for this reason the exception is left to propagate until nothing else handles it. / comments
Any non-recoverable exception will stop the application from continuing (as defined by the framework) - so ExecutionEngineException, StackOverflowException, and OutOfMemoryException.
Also if the ex...
A few questions:
Which protections are you applying to your assembly?
Is the type that is failing to be Serialized in the main assembly or in a separate dll? If it is in a separate dll are you merging it into the main assembly as this could cause issues for serialization.
Does the type that is failing to be Serialized have an attribute within the System.Xml.Serialization namespace, as SmartAssembly will pick this up and be very careful with the type. / comments
A few questions:
Which protections are you applying to your assembly?
Is the type that is failing to be Serialized in the main assembly or in a separate dll? If it is in a separate dll are you merg...
Yay for random bugs which fix themselves. Glad it is all working now.
I've formally added the RunOnException to our tracker system (logged as SA-320), so hopefully you should have it back in one of the forthcoming versions. / comments
Yay for random bugs which fix themselves. Glad it is all working now.
I've formally added the RunOnException to our tracker system (logged as SA-320), so hopefully you should have it back in one of...
Unfortunately RunOnException is not available any more although we may look at adding it back into the new version.
As long as you have set the email address within the SmartAssembly project for your application (the email address is now defined per project) and you have set the SmtpServer setting in the web config it should work.
Do you get any error messages in your Smtp Server log?
Does the website application have permission to send mail on the Smtp Server? / comments
Unfortunately RunOnException is not available any more although we may look at adding it back into the new version.
As long as you have set the email address within the SmartAssembly project for yo...
That shouldn't happen.
What have you altered on the template?
Is everything still obfuscated in the Error Report or just certain parts? / comments
That shouldn't happen.
What have you altered on the template?
Is everything still obfuscated in the Error Report or just certain parts?
The option to use "Automatic reporting (without UI)" is mostly designed for use where a dialog box might not be appropriate, for instance a command line tool or a Windows service. / comments
The option to use "Automatic reporting (without UI)" is mostly designed for use where a dialog box might not be appropriate, for instance a command line tool or a Windows service.
I've sent you a PM.
No the field name managling shouldn't make any different in this case. / comments
I've sent you a PM.
No the field name managling shouldn't make any different in this case.
Oh that is an interesting bug. If you are using [ObfuscateTo( string )] on a method then you have to use "Unicode encoding with advanced renaming" for it to work. I've logged the bug as (SA-325) as it should be available on all settings.
[ObfuscateNamespaceTo( string )] needs to be applied to a class, struct, enum or interface, otherwise you will get a compiler error. / comments
Oh that is an interesting bug. If you are using [ObfuscateTo( string )] on a method then you have to use "Unicode encoding with advanced renaming" for it to work. I've logged the bug as (SA-325) as...