Activity overview
Latest activity by Jon Kirkwood
Hi Axium7, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SQL Search inquiry. Unfortunately, SQL Search does not store any default settings that can be recalled. Drop-down selection is recalled for the active SSMS session, and this data is dropped when that session closes. The displayed information in these drop-downs depends on a connection to your database instances so they can be populated. This is generated when a connection is made and isn't stored outside the active session. You can post this on our UserVoice forum as a feature request if this is something you'd like to see: https://redgate.uservoice.com/forums/101149-sql-search / comments
Official comment
Hi Axium7, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SQL Search inquiry. Unfortunately, SQL Search does not store any default settings that can be recalled. Drop-down selectio...
Hi emmar00, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forum regarding your Redgate Monitor alert suppression question. I did some testing today and found the following:
It does depend on how you have your suppression window configured as to which alerts are suppressed
My testing was conducted with all alerts suppressed & alerts and notifications suppressed to cover all scenarios.
[image] Alerts raised before a suppression window but ended during - Alert raised, and an initial alert notification is sent; no notification is issued when the alert has ended. The alert is tracked in Monitor and has a status of Ended. Alerts raised during and ended during a suppression window - No alert is raised, no alert notifications are sent out There is no alert created in Monitor. Alerts raised during a suppression window and ended after - Alert raised after suppression window and backdated to the computed alert start time. This does not raise an initial alert notification and alert status is set to Active An alert is raised and has a status of Active. This may clear automatically, but ideally needs to be manually reviewed and cleared. In the third situation, as there is no initial notification that the alert is created, it appears to stay in an open/active status so it may be reviewed. A new notification can be manually issued and then checked before it is marked as cleared. This helps verify that any persistent alerts are accounted for after the suppression window has completed. / comments
Official comment
Hi emmar00, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forum regarding your Redgate Monitor alert suppression question. I did some testing today and found the following:
It does depend on how you h...
Hi rick105, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SmartAssembly concern. Interesting that you have a variance between VS build process over running it through SmartAssembly GUI directly. Since your other .NET 8.0 projects obfuscate correctly, here are some things to check: 1️⃣ Compare SA Logs (Build vs. UI) – Check if the build log shows SA skipping obfuscation or using the wrong input/output paths. 2️⃣ Check the SmartAssembly Project File (.saproj) – Open it in a text editor and compare it to a working one. Make sure dependency merge/embed settings match. 3️⃣ Investigate MSBuild Process – Run MSBuild /verbosity:diagnostic to see if SA is being invoked properly for this project. 4️⃣ Check the SA Task in .csproj – Verify that SA is actually being triggered. You might have something like: <Target Name="AfterBuild">
<Exec Command=""$(SmartAssemblyPath)\SmartAssembly.com" /build MyProject.saproj" />
</Target> Try running this command manually to see if it works outside the build. 5️⃣ Check Dependencies – Does this project reference anything different, like native libraries or unmanaged code? 6️⃣ Rebuild from Scratch – Try a full clean (bin/obj deletion) and test with a fresh SA project file. If nothing stands out, feel free to share your SA logs and .saproj file so we can investigate further I have generated a secure file-link to provide any logs/project files. This link is valid for 14 days. https://files.red-gate.com/requests/CHkY0nxjxnmEUmVu8HZACE / comments
Official comment
Hi rick105, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SmartAssembly concern.Interesting that you have a variance between VS build process over running it through SmartAssembly...
Hi rick105 Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SmartAssembly question regarding obfuscating into a single file app. When publishing a .NET application as a single file, SmartAssembly can still obfuscate it, but some extra steps are required since the assembly is embedded within the single file executable. Here’s a possible method on how this can be achieved 1. Publish Without Single File First SmartAssembly needs access to the raw assembly (.dll ) before it gets bundled into a single file.
Publish your app without the PublishSingleFile option first: dotnet publish -c Release -r win-x64 --self-contained false
This generates a normal set of .dll files in the bin\Release\netX\publish\ folder.
2. Obfuscate with SmartAssembly
Open SmartAssembly and create a new project.
Add your main application .dll (e.g., MyApp.dll ).
Configure obfuscation, string encryption, control flow obfuscation, etc.
Build the obfuscated .dll .
3. Publish as Single File Manually Now, repackage the obfuscated assembly into a single file:
Replace the original .dll with the obfuscated version.
Run the dotnet publish command with single file enabled: dotnet publish -c Release -r win-x64 -p:PublishSingleFile=true -p:IncludeAllContentForSelfExtract=true --self-contained false The IncludeAllContentForSelfExtract=true ensures embedded assemblies can still be loaded properly.
4. Test the Application
Run the generated .exe and verify functionality.
Use a decompiler to confirm that obfuscation is applied.
Hopefully this process can be used to obfuscate your project and end with a single file executable as desired. / comments
Official comment
Hi rick105 Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SmartAssembly question regarding obfuscating into a single file app.When publishing a .NET application as a single file, S...
Hi David15 Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SmartAssembly licensing question. SmartAssembly's deactivation process affects all instances on the machine because its licensing system is server-based than individual user/instance. When you deactivate a license, it removes it from the system-wide activation store, impacting all instances on that machine. Here are some potential workarounds, provided you have appropriate licensing:
Use a Virtual Machine – If you need separate licenses for different instances, running SmartAssembly in a VM with its own activation can isolate licenses.
Manually Re-activate Another Instance – After deactivation, you can manually re-activate only the instance you need.
/ comments
Official comment
Hi David15Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SmartAssembly licensing question. SmartAssembly's deactivation process affects all instances on the machine because its lic...
Hi TevorMcComb, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SQL Prompt variable warning. I've recreated a similar situation where variables are set within a SELECT statement and prompt this warning. I think this is triggered because the variables are set, but not technically used in that senses. The warning cleared once the variables were used later in the script. It's a bit of peculiar behaviour though. If I set a variable to have a value outside a SELECT block, this warning didn't appear. I'm going to put this through to our developers to see if there is possibly a bug in the behaviour. In the interim, though, this should just be a warning and having unused variables would not affect code execution or formatting. / comments
Official comment
Hi TevorMcComb, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SQL Prompt variable warning.I've recreated a similar situation where variables are set within a SELECT statement and...
Hi Infocorp, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums. Looking into this, Error Code 9 is most often returned when the program is closed by the OS or another process. The most common cause we've seen previously is memory overflow, but the reason may be different (Antivirus software, forced close of running process etc). Are you able to create documentation from another database, or test making it from another machine and verify if that works? / comments
Official comment
Hi Infocorp,Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums. Looking into this, Error Code 9 is most often returned when the program is closed by the OS or another process. The most common cause w...
Hi Phil, Thanks for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SQL Data Compare concern. I've looked through and couldn't see any explicit changes that may have been connected to this datatype. Doing some testing I wasn't able to trigger anything immediate to show an issue - do you have an example that you are able to share to help replicate this if it is indeed a bug/regression that needs to be escalated. We do have some releases since 15.4.10, it may be worth patching to see if this is resolved already. Download link for V15.4.12 can be found here: https://download.red-gate.com/checkforupdates/SQLDataCompare/SQLDataCompare_15.4.12.28089.exe / comments
Official comment
Hi Phil, Thanks for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding your SQL Data Compare concern. I've looked through and couldn't see any explicit changes that may have been connected to this dataty...
Hi SergeyK for providing your solution. Your solution does makes sense, as the DDL trigger could indeed be interfering with the clone creation process. Here are some possible reasons why:
Triggers and Permissions: DDL triggers can perform actions like logging schema changes, and in some cases, these actions can require additional permissions or affect the state of the database. If the trigger is set to log schema changes to another database, it could be trying to access resources or log data that isn't available or correctly mapped in the cloned environment.
Backup Creation Process: When creating a clone, Redgate SQL Clone effectively takes a snapshot of the database. If a DDL trigger is active, it might attempt to execute additional operations that can interfere with the cloning process, especially if it tries to reference external resources or databases that the clone might not have access to at that moment.
Disabling the Trigger: Disabling the DDL trigger before taking the backup makes sense because it prevents any additional operations from being triggered during the clone creation, ensuring that the backup is clean and doesn't have any external dependencies.
To summarize: The issue likely arose because the DDL trigger was executing and possibly trying to log changes to an external database, leading to conflicts or missing mappings. Disabling or removing the trigger resolves this issue, as it prevents those additional operations from interfering with the clone creation. Glad that you have resolved your concern, and this information may come in useful in the future for someone else getting the same error. / comments
Official comment
Hi SergeyK for providing your solution. Your solution does makes sense, as the DDL trigger could indeed be interfering with the clone creation process. Here are some possible reasons why:
Triggers...
Hi Adam, A fix has been included in the latest release of Dependency Tracker for the XML export option. Can you patch at your earliest convenience and verify this has been fixed for you Release notes: https://documentation.red-gate.com/sdt/release-notes-and-other-versions/sql-dependency-tracker-3-4-release-notes
Version 3.4.4 - March 03rd, 2025
Fixes
Fixed an issue to show only the visible objects in XML export
Download link: https://download.red-gate.com/checkforupdates/SQLDependencyTracker/SQLDependencyTracker_3.4.4.6074.exe / comments
Official comment
Hi Adam,A fix has been included in the latest release of Dependency Tracker for the XML export option.Can you patch at your earliest convenience and verify this has been fixed for you Release notes...