Comments
Sort by recent activity
Hi PradnayaN, Thanks for reaching out on the Redgate forums. This sounds like an issue with obfuscating assemblies that are involved in reflection, dependency injection, or are entry points. We recommend starting with minimal obfuscation settings and excluding the main assembly and any shared contracts or reflection-heavy code to ensure runtime stability. Here are some initial steps to try first to see if you can clear your issues with obfuscation
Don't Obfuscate Entry Point or Shared Contracts Exclude:
Program.dll or main project.
Any shared interfaces or base class libraries (used in reflection or dependency injection).
DTOs, gRPC contracts, Razor components, etc.
➜ Use [DoNotObfuscate] or SmartAssembly project file filters.
Turn Off Type/Method Renaming for Reflection-Heavy Code If you use:
Dependency Injection
Reflection
JSON serialization/deserialization ➜ Obfuscated names won’t match expected strings.
Fix: Add [Obfuscation(Exclude = true)] or exclude via SA project rules.
Assembly Load Failures? If your app dynamically loads assemblies, you must not obfuscate public types or names unless explicitly handled.
➜ Check AppDomain.AssemblyResolve or plugin patterns.
Use Debug Logs or Fusion Log Viewer Might help to catch missing method/assembly load failures.
Minimal Working Obfuscation
Start with: <Obfuscation NameMangling="0" FieldsNameMangling="0" />
Then incrementally raise levels after testing that the previous setting worked.
/ comments
Official comment
Hi PradnayaN, Thanks for reaching out on the Redgate forums.This sounds like an issue with obfuscating assemblies that are involved in reflection, dependency injection, or are entry points. We reco...
Hi Carman Houston, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding this SSMS21 install anomaly. I've replicated this and can confirm that Prompt is creating it's pkgdef extension data in the standard SSMS21 install folder even without SSMS21 installed. This is not ideal. I shall escalate this to our developers to ensure that the installer more accurately determines the installed versions of SSMS to load the extension into. / comments
Official comment
Hi Carman Houston, Thank you for reaching out on the Redgate forums regarding this SSMS21 install anomaly. I've replicated this and can confirm that Prompt is creating it's pkgdef extension data in...
Sorry to hear that is happening, are you able to confirm what version of SSMS you are using SQL Search in? If you are using it in SSMS21, can you confirm if the same issues with refreshing databases are occurring in SSMS18-20 also? We have recently implemented preview support for SSMS21 and may have some bugs like this occurring. If you are using SSMS18-20, can you locate the most recent log file and provide a copy of it for investigation. You can access it in the Help > Logging > Locate log files menu option. [image] You can provide logs to this secure file link, it will be valid for 14 days: https://files.red-gate.com/requests/Fz2UUZT776sd7QtK0lXeEo / comments
Sorry to hear that is happening, are you able to confirm what version of SSMS you are using SQL Search in? If you are using it in SSMS21, can you confirm if the same issues with refreshing database...
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 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...