Comments
Sort by recent activity
Eaton, I've sent you a PM. / comments
Eaton, I've sent you a PM.
Could you have look at your original (before SmartAssembly protected) assembly in Reflector and see if it is referencing two version of mscorlib.
SmartAssembly should look at the version of mscorlib referenced and from that and a few other hints link against the correct version of the framework. / comments
Could you have look at your original (before SmartAssembly protected) assembly in Reflector and see if it is referencing two version of mscorlib.
SmartAssembly should look at the version of mscorli...
Eaton wrote:
I can't look at a protected version because it gives me a build error every time.
Sorry yes.
OK, well that narrows down the problem slightly. If you have a look in the *.csproj (or *.vbproj) in notepad or similar does it mention both versions of mscorlib? / comments
Eaton wrote:
I can't look at a protected version because it gives me a build error every time.
Sorry yes.
OK, well that narrows down the problem slightly. If you have a look in the *.csproj (o...
Sorry, my fault, I meant to say the SmartAssembly project file (*.saproj or *.{sa}proj). / comments
Sorry, my fault, I meant to say the SmartAssembly project file (*.saproj or *.{sa}proj).
We don't recommend it, because it breaks error reporting, but...
Add a node called "DoNotAddPoweredByAttribute" in the "Options" section of the SmartAssembly.settings file.
However, you should really log a bug with the third party component as it is picking up the version number of a reference assembly, which is just wrong (it may as well just always return 2.0.0.0 - which could be the version of the .NET Framework core libraries). / comments
We don't recommend it, because it breaks error reporting, but...
Add a node called "DoNotAddPoweredByAttribute" in the "Options" section of the SmartAssembly.settings file.
However, you should real...
Sorry for taking a week to reply to this one, not quite sure how I missed it.
Did you start from one of the samples and edit the forms from there or did you start from scratch?
I know when I was having a play around with the samples I had a similar problem, but for that as soon as I added a resource in the Visual Studio (2010) designer everything worked.
The samples are designed for compatibility with all framework versions so the forms do not have individual resource files (they became standard in VS 2005 with the partial classes allowing forms to be kept in 3 seperate files).
If the individual resource file for the form hasn't been created by Visual Studio (or yourself), then the call to
System.ComponentModel.ComponentResourceManager resources = new System.ComponentModel.ComponentResourceManager(typeof(ExceptionReportingForm));
will fail as the ResourceManager will start off trying to resolve the ExceptionReportingForm.resource namespace. / comments
Sorry for taking a week to reply to this one, not quite sure how I missed it.
Did you start from one of the samples and edit the forms from there or did you start from scratch?
I know when I was ha...
In case anyone else has this problem, Alex had a look into the matter. He found that SmartAssembly was getting confused counting when it was trying to add the improved version the string encoding to strings when they are in the global namespace and class ("<module>").
The fix should be included in a forthcoming update (provisionally 5.2)
The two options I can suggest in the meantime:
- Use the standard version of string encoding
- Move the strings from the global namespace and class / comments
In case anyone else has this problem, Alex had a look into the matter. He found that SmartAssembly was getting confused counting when it was trying to add the improved version the string encoding t...
Once you are about to send out a release just run the command line version of SmartAssembly (SmartAssembly.com) with the switch /markasrelease and the parameter the path of the assembly you are about to release.
e.g.
SmartAssembly.com /markasrelease MyExeFile.exe
There is more information about the command line version in our support pages.
Note 1:
Information not marked "as release" is deleted if it is not accessed (i.e. exceptions reported) for 15 days. This is configurable, so if you know that it will take longer than 15 days between building your application and marking it for release then you should extend the time. In the SmartAssembly.settings file (which will either be where you have installed SmartAssembly on XP or in "C:\ProgramData\Red Gate\SmartAssembly 5\" on Vista / Win 7) in the "Options" section change or add a "Maps" node with the attribute ObsoleteAfterNDays="x" where x is the number of days.
e.g.
<SmartAssembly.Settings>
....
<Options>
....
<Maps ObsoleteAfterNDays="30" />
</Options>
</SmartAssembly.Settings>
Note 2:
This is only relevant if you are using the Error Reporting feature of SmartAssembly, if you are using the ASCII encoding to use the more traditional Stack Trace Decode feature you don't need to worry about this. / comments
Once you are about to send out a release just run the command line version of SmartAssembly (SmartAssembly.com) with the switch /markasrelease and the parameter the path of the assembly you are abo...
You can change the folder to save the map files by opening the database (in SQL Server Management Studio or similar). In the table Information there is the field "MapFolderNetworkPath", you just need to change the first record to the path you wish.
It was a usablity against integrety and security issue that we discussed during testing. The feeling was that we didn't want to make it a one click process because otherwise any user could alter it and you could end up with lots of maps files in lot of different places which SmartAssembly couldn't find. / comments
You can change the folder to save the map files by opening the database (in SQL Server Management Studio or similar). In the table Information there is the field "MapFolderNetworkPath", you just ne...
It is a nice idea, which unfortunately is not available in the profiler at the moment.
My only slight concern would be how to accurately model the difference reducing the number of hits would make, as the each time a method is called it has the potential to have a completely different control flow and so processing time, and that presumably you would have to change other code in order to have the same eventual output.
However, having said that, there would be a lot of functions where the processing time would be fairly constant and so this could be a really good addition to the profiler.
The developers keep a close eye over these forums so they will definitely look into it for future versions.
One thing that you may wish to try is to changing to display absolute (ticks or milliseconds) times rather than percentages, as this will allow you to see the time taken for each hit. It is not as nice and interactive as your suggestion, but it will give you some times to compare the your existing solution to any changes. / comments
It is a nice idea, which unfortunately is not available in the profiler at the moment.
My only slight concern would be how to accurately model the difference reducing the number of hits would make,...