I just moved my code from subversion to TFS.
When I get latest version, I understand that I can't get write permissions.
However, when I check out and choose the option to take the exclusive lock, a check mark appears next to my files and I am able to edit them.
When I look in Windows explorer, however, some files are still marked "read only."
This becomes a problem when I try and run my application. For some reason, not having write permissions to everything gives me an exception at the target of invocation message (its a wpf project).
When I run the files out of version control, everything is fine. When I run the version under TFS, I get that exception--even when I've exclusively checked the files out.
Any idea what is going on here?
Sounds like quite a bit of confusion here. So i have a number of questions:
Did you specifically check out the files that are still marked "read only"? Or did you just check out other files which may be related to the ones marked "read only".
Did you use the Source Control window or the Solution Explorer when performing the checkout command? Did you select specific files or just the top level project file?
Are the files actually part of the project? or are they simply in the same folder but still under source control?
What exact error message are you getting?
What files are the problem? In other words have you checked in the compiled binaries from the BIN or OBJ folders?
TFS terminology is a little different than SVN.
"Get" represents an update in SVN terms.
"Checkin" commits your changes and both "Checkin" and "Checkout" are responsible for managing file locks.
"Checkin" releases the locks.
"Checkout" requests the locks.
There are 3 types of locking you can use or none at all. I would opt for using None as it's likely to cause the least issues, many of which can be resolved during a merge and a little bit of communication.
Related
I'm trying to handle all of User Interfaces (UI) dialogs in .msi installing pakage, with EmbeddedUIHandler to do this I have created a setupui.dll which contains three methods: InitializeEmbeddedUI, ShutdownEmbeddedUI, EmbeddedUIHandler, and put it inside of MsiEmbeddedUI table (using installshield) and it worked just fine.
The problem is when setupui.dll is dependent to other external DLLs, this time windows installer won't use my dll and it uses default ui, I have added other DLL dependencies with Installshield as follow:
I'm uncertain of what Windows Installer allows here. There are, however, three things that jump out at me as things to look into:
The MsiEmbeddedUI table's Attributes column should probably have a 3 for SetupUI.dll (as it does), and 0 for the rest. Per the docs, the 2 bit is ignored if the 1 bit isn't present, but all the other files are better described as "It may be a resource used by the user interface."
The verbose log: does it indicate what's going on? Does it show a failure loading SetupUI.dll that provides a useful error code (hint: file not found probably refers to a dependency)? Does it indicate it didn't even try to load your DLL? Look for lines with EEUI, at least in the successful case.
If Windows Installer does attempt to load SetupUI.dll, how far does it get? If it gets far enough for you to run some code and, say, show a message box, what files are already extracted at that point? If the dependencies are extracted, can you ensure that its directory is on the DLL path via SetDllDirectory or AddDllDirectory? If the dependencies are not extracted, are they present at a later point so approches like delay loading could help?
For the third point, Process Monitor may help you diagnose what's going on if you can't get a message box in there, but it will probably be less clear. Alternately, using Loader Snaps and Debug View might get you a related set of information, but it may be drowned in additional noise.
Im want to build a file system for non-tecks( dont care about old versions of the file so no merging or svn/git). The thougt is that a user should be able to download a file, in the same instance the file should be locked for other users. When the first user is done editing the, the file should then automaticaly upload to the server. When he closes the file, the lock should den be opend.
Is this even possible? Im thingking a sort of browser plugin, but I cant find anywone that has done the same thing. (besides microsoft, but who want to go down that road)
That would be: Sharepoint, Alfresco, (almost every WIKI), ...
Actually that is a basic feature of most document management systems. Even SVN has that already and IIRC you can set that up with mod_dav_svn without a line of code (considering configuration is not code).
Also the interesting question is, IMHO, not TheHappyCase where the described unit of work goes well but what about this*:
I Checkout 50 random documents you need
(get some popcorn and wait for your stresslevel to go up)
?????
I get bored and forget about it (everything still being checked out)
*: Points (1) and (2) may change order
I've seen several questions that are the opposite of this; "How do I disable virtualization?" That is not my question. I want to force an application to run with virtualization enabled.
I have an application that ran just fine under Windows XP, but, because it writes its configuration to its working directory (a subfolder of "C:\Program Files (x86)"), it does not work completely under Windows 7. If I use task manager to turn on UAC Virtualization, it saves its config just fine, but of course it then can't load that config.
I do not want to set it to run as administrator, as it does not need those privileges. I want to set it to run with UAC Virtualization enabled.
I found a suggestion that I put some magic in the registry at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags. For completeness I also put it in Wow6432Node, but neither had any effect.
File system is virtualized in certain scenarios, so is your question how to still turn it on when your application does not qualify? It is unlikely possible, MSDN:
Virtualization is not in option in the following scenarios:
Virtualization does not apply to applications that are elevated and run with a full administrative access token.
Virtualization supports only 32-bit applications. Non-elevated 64-bit applications simply receive an access denied message when they
attempt to acquire a handle (a unique identifier) to a Windows object.
Native Windows 64-bit applications are required to be compatible with
UAC and to write data into the correct locations.
Virtualization is disabled for an application if the application includes an application manifest with a requested execution level
attribute.
this may come way too late now, but I am the author of the suggestion you found to activate UAC virtualization, and there was a mistake in my post. The registry keys to modify are the following:
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers\
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers\
(notice the "Layers" appended)
so a full example would be:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers]
"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Some Company\\someprogram.exe"="RUNASINVOKER"
note that multiple parameters must be separated with space character.
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers]
"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Some Company\\someprogram.exe"="WINXPSP3 RUNASINVOKER"
--
I'm sincerely sorry that you lost a fair amount of time because of my mistake.
And by the way, let me express my disagreement with Ian Boyd's post. There are places where write privileges should not be granted to everyone, such as this one, since it breaks the base security rule of "System-wide writes should be authorised to privileged principals only". Program Files is a system-wide place, not a per-user one.
All rules have exceptions of course, but in the present case, one could imagine a maliciously crafted configuration file making the program exec an arbitrary command as the user running it. On a lighter side, one could imagine a "mistake delete" by another user, which would make the app fail. Back on the heavier side, application executables in Program Files are often run by the admin, sooner or later. Even if you don't want to, uninstalling programs very often run uninstall executables that are in Program Files. Maybe the uninstall procedure will use that config file which could have consequences if it's maliciously crafted.
Of course you may say, this sounds paranoid somehow, agreed. I did modify some NTFS ACLs in Program Files at the times of Win XP and was able to sleep after that, but why take the slightest risk when the tools are available ?
I found one not very well cited condition where UAC Virtualization does NOT work: when the file in Program Files is maked as read-only.
That is, suppose the file C:\Program Files\<whatever>\config.ini is marked as read-only. When the application try to change it, UAC Virtualization will return an access denied error instead of reparsing it to %LOCALAPPDATA%\VirtualStore\<whatever>\config.ini.
Although I did not found this documented, this behavior is probably done by design, since it makes some sense.
The solution is simple: assure that all files that are supposed to be modified by the application are not read-only (or just unflag all files, since the user will not be able to change them anyway).
You have an application, and you want users to be able to modify registry keys or files in locations that by default only Administrators can modify.
If you were running Windows 2000, or Windows XP, or Windows Vista, or Windows 7, or Windows 8, the solution is the same:
grant appropriate permissions to those locations
For example, if your program needs to modify files in:
C:\Program Files\Blizzard\World of Warcraft
Then the correct action is to change permissions on the World of Warcraft folder. This is, in fact, a shim that Microsoft applied to World of Warcraft. (On next run it granted Everyone Full Control to the folder - how else can WoW update itself no matter what user is logged in.)
If you want users to be able to modify files in a location: you have to grant them permission. If you were a standard user trying to run WoW on Windows XP you will get the same problem - and need to apply the same solution.
Your application is writing its configuration to:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Hyperion Pro\preferences.ini
then you, in fact do want to grant Users Full Control to that file:
So your:
application is not set to run as an Administrator
users cannot modify the executable
users can modify Configuration.ini
Granting permissions is not a bad thing; it's how you administer your server.
There are two solutions:
Install to C:\ProgramData\Contoso\Preferences.ini and ACL it at install time
Install to C:\Program Files\Contoso\Preferences.ini and ACL it at install time
And if you look at the guidance of the AppCompat guy at Microsoft:
Where Should I Write Program Data Instead of Program Files?
A common application code update is this: “my application used to write files to program files. It felt like as good a place to put it as any other. It had my application’s name on it already, and because my users were admins, it worked fine. But now I see that this may not be as great a place to stick things as I once thought, because with UAC even Administrators run with standard user-like privileges most of the time. So, where should I put my files instead?”
FOLDERID_ProgramData
The user would never want to browse here in Explorer, and settings changed here should affect every user on the machine. The default location is %systemdrive%ProgramData, which is a hidden folder, on an installation of Windows Vista. You’ll want to create your directory and set the ACLs you need at install time.
So you have two solutions:
create your file at install time, and ACL it so that all users can modify it at runtime
create your file at install time, and ACL it so that all users can modify it at runtime
The only difference is semantic. The Program Files folder is mean for program files. You don't want to store data here.
And it's not because Diego Queiroz has any insight about security.
It's because it's where just the programs go.
Sometimes machines are imaged with the same Program Files over and over. You don't want per-machine data in your image. That data belongs in ProgramData.
And it's not a security issue.
Some people have to learn where the security boundary is.
there are quite some good points in those other answers.
actually i have upvoted all of those.
so let's all combine them together and add some more aspect ...
the OP mentions some "legacy application from the old days".
so we can assume it is x86 (32bit) and also does not include any manifest (and in particular does not specify any "requestedExecutionLevel").
--
Roman R. has good points in his answer regarding x64 and manifest file:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8853363/1468842
but all those conditions don't seem to apply in this case.
NovHak outlines some AppCompatFlags with RUNASIVOKER in his answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/25903006/1468842
Diego Queiroz adds intersting aspect regarding the read-only flag in his answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/42934048/1468842
Ian Boyd states that probably you don't even should go for that "virtualization", but instead set according ACL on those files of interest (such as "config.ini"):
https://stackoverflow.com/a/12940213/1468842
and here comes the addtional / new aspect:
one can set a policy to disable all virtualization - system-wide:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System]
"EnableVirtualization"=dword:00000000
actually i'm enforcing this policy on each and every system that i own.
because otherwise it will lead to confusing behaviour on multi-user environments.
where UserA applies some changes and everything goes fine.
but then UnserB does not get the changes done by UserA.
in case some old crappy software fails then it should "fail"!
and not claim that everything went "fine".
IMHO this "Virtualization" thing was the worst design decision by microsoft, ever.
so maybe the system has this policy enabled and that's why virtualization doesn't work for you?
--
so probably the ultimate checklist would be:
is the application x86 or x64?
does the exe have a manifest (including the requestedExecutionLevel)?
have you checked the read-only attribute (e.g. of those INI files)?
is there a policy to force the EnableVirtualization to 0?
have you tried the AppCompatFlags with RUNASIVOKER?
or simply go for ACL instead of virtualization
--
in the end we are discussing how to get on old legacy application to run.
by using whatever workarounds and hacks we can think of.
this should probably better discussed on either superuser or serverfault.
at stackoverflow (targeted for programmers) we all know: it's about time to get all of our own programs compatible with UAC concept and how to implement things the "right" way - the "microsoft" way :)
Whenever I open one of the Quantum Grid demos in Delphi XE Pro (on Windows 7 32-bit), the following error is displayed for every table (I think) in the project:
error message http://www.tranglos.com/img/qgerror.png
The message is:
Network initialization failed.
File or directory does not exist.
File: C:\PDOXUSRS.NET
Permission denied.
Directory: C:\.
I understand permission issues writing to c:\, but the result is that while I can build and run the demo projects, no data is displayed, which makes the demos rather useless. And what kind of database writes its configuration to c:\ directory in the 21st century anyway? :) (Yes, I know very little about Paradox databases, but I won't ever be using one either. I just want to learn how to use the grid.)
Using BDE Administrator I've tried changing the Paradox "NET DIR" value to a folder with write permissions on the C drive. Result: now the database tables cannot find their data:
Path not found.
File: C:..\..\Data\GENRES.DB.
...and the unhelpfully truncated path gives no indication where the files are expected to be.
Is there a way to work around the problem so that the demos can load their sample data correctly?
Did you install the BDE correctly? It should use the DBDEMOS files. Do you see such an alias in the BDE administration utility? Can you open that database in one of the Delphi demos?
The BDE is not a XXI century database, it was developed twenty years ago and never upgraded lately. It's an obsolete tecnology, but because it comes still with every release of Delphi with a known database it is still often used in demos because nothing new has to be installed.
Anyway that file is not its configuration file. It's a sharing lock file to allow more than one user to use the database concurrently. Because it is a file based database without a central server, it has to use such kind of shared files. Usually its position is changed to a network share, but it defaults to C:\ for historical reasons.
Anyway it's not only the BDE still attempting to write in the prong directories. I still see a full bunch of applications attempting to write to C:\ (especially logs) or other read-only positions.
Using BDE Admin to change the location for PDOXUSRS.NET helped, but it wasn't sufficient. DevExpress did the right thing in specifying a relative folder for the data location, and the relative folder seems perfectly allright, but for some reason the DB can't find it.
Solution: under the \Demos\ folder find all the *.dfm files that contain the string
..\..\Data
and replace that string with the absolute path to the demos folder. That done, all the demos open correctly.
I know this message from our own applications. It has to do with security measures introduced with Windows Vista. The operating system trying to protect critical files denies access to them. There is a method how to bypass this mechanism without compromising security. Try to run your application in compatibility mode. When application is running in compatibility mode, read / write operations from / to system folders are redirected to "safe" directories located in C:\Users[Current User]\AppData\Local\VirtualStore.
More info on http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Protecting-System-Files-UAC-Virtualization-Part1.html.
I have a WPF project which compiles just fine. However, when I enable code contracts, I get a lot of errors like the following:
file 'C:\MyProject\obj\Debug\MyFile.g.i.cs' could not be found
Is there workaround?
Just FYI... This bug has been fixed in the latest version of Code Contracts (v1.2.21023.14, released Oct. 22nd).
Can you be a bit more specific about your repro steps? The significance of the files ending in .g.i.cs is they are files generated specifically to enable intellisense in running projects. They are not truly part of the build process and likely should not be consumed by code contracts. I'm not a code contracts expert by any means though so I could be wrong on this point.
I posted a repro and workaround to this problem on the Code Contracts forum. Here's the URL:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/codecontracts/thread/4f2af748-1db1-4175-abf0-fbcc82f177ee
The short answer is that the error occurs whenever you have multiple projects that reference each other in a Solution, and one of the child projects is a WPF control library. To get around the problem, you can either disable contract verification for the parent project(s) (the ones that reference the other projects), or you can add a post-build event to the offending child project(s) to create the *.g.i.cs files that the Code Contracts rewriter is looking for.
For example, create a blank text file in the root directory of your child project and name it "Blank.txt". Then add the following command as a post-build event in that project:
copy "$(ProjectDir)Blank.txt" "$(ProjectDir)obj\$(Configuration)\GeneratedInternalTypeHelper.g.i.cs"
Copy this line as many times as needed, one for each missing file.