We Keep Coding

Output a Roslyn MSBuildWorkspace to different folder

When executing
mSBuildWorkspace.TryApplyChanges(solution);
Visual Studio changes the solution in place. This means that if I want to output to a different location, I need to first copy the whole solution to the requested target and only then work on it. This is error prone as the solution might have relative path links to dependencies, which can break when moving the solution.
So is there a way to tell MSBuildWorkspace to output the changes to a different folder than the source?

There's no built-in support for this.
Option #1: Instead of instead of calling TryApplyChanges you could call Solution.GetChanges to figure out what changed compared to what was originally loaded, and then call the various methods to get the changed documents and apply the edit yourself. This means you're on the hook to actually apply the edits -- source file edits are easy (just write the updated text) but if you care about more complicated things like project changes (adding/removing references) you don't really have a way to leverage MSBuildWorkspace's support for those sorts of things.
Option #2: Roslyn's open source, so you'd have to modify MSBuildWorkspace yourself to allow such a redirection, which would let you potentially try to reuse some of the more complicated logic around project manipulation. Or you can just copy/paste the implementation of the applying, and then use Solution.GetChanges and the reused code.

Can language localisations be automatically reverse engineered from .resx files?

I'm working with an MVC 4 app that was originally created with the intention of possibly requiring language localisation so there's a heavy use of .resx files and corresponding embedding of references throughout the project. As it turns out, the app will only ever be used by English speaking audiences and indeed no other languages were ever loaded in. What we've got now is an overhead every time we need to put text on a page and increasing inconsistency as English language is hard-coded into places which can't directly access the resource files such as .js files and reference data in the DB.
Short of a lot of copying and pasting, is there any automated way to extract the English language values from the resource files and replace their references in the views? In a perfect world there'd be a tool to do this and certainly it's conceptually scriptable, does anything like this exist already?

You will have to script it. I have done similar stuff with the O2 Platform AST manipulation Mono.Cecil and mono Cecil APIs.
If you give me a small project with the use can you need (a resx file and an MVC view) I can show you a code snippet example

I haven't seen anything that would take care of this. My first thought is because of the localization issues that could be presented in most "out of the box" solution.
This maybe far fetched, but giving it a shot. Could you write a C# app that would load the assembly that holds the resource file, then loop through every file in the project and replace the resource keys with the values?
As you said, it is possible to be scripted, and this seems like the easiest yet crudest way to complete the task in my mind. Depending on the number of resources you're talking about, obviously it maybe easier and safer to copy/paste.

Satellite assemblies..If you have all app resources placed in a project then create the non-default language you want to implement. For example fr_ca.ErrorMsg | en_gb.ErrorMsg and en_Us.ErrorMsg. The default language can be specified in the main Thread.CultureInfo If en_us then fill you en_us file with all entries need and other resources will only be loaded if it does not exist in the default resource->en_us.

In .NET, How do I separate xml from compiled resource file?

We have a customer that would like to modify application user messages that we store in .resx files. I'm thinking this can't be done since the xml file behind the .resx is embedded in a compiled dll. Am I correct? Or, is there a way keep the xml outside of the compiled dll? I realize this can easily be done by other means but I like the ease of the resx file--the classes/properties are created for you.

You are correct. Anything is possible of course, but it won't be nearly as convenient or easy to maintain. It doesn't sound like a satellite assembly would fly here. An application setting is about the easiest. A good way to keep requests like these at bay is to quote an accurate price that includes the hassle of maintaining this for the next N years.

Make an executable at runtime

Ok, so I was wondering how one would go about creating a program, that creates a second program(Like how most compression programs can create self extracting self excutables, but that's not what I need).
Say I have 2 programs. Each one containing a class. The one program I would use to modify and fill the class with data. The second file would be a program that also had the class, but empty, and it's only purpose is to access this data in a specific way. I don't know, I'm thinking if the specific class were serialized and then "injected" into the second file. But how would one be able to do that? I've found modifying files that were already compiled fascinating, though I've never been able to make changes that didn't cause errors.
That's just a thought. I don't know what the solution would be, that's just something that crossed my mind.
I'd prefer some information in say c or c++ that's cross-platform. The only other language I'd accept is c#.
also
I'm not looking for 3-rd party library's, or things such as Boost. If anything a shove in the right direction could be all I need.
++also
I don't want to be using a compiler.
Jalf actually read what I wrote
That's exactly what I would like to know how to do. I think that's fairly obvious by what I asked above. I said nothing about compiling the files, or scripting.
QUOTE "I've found modifying files that were already compiled fascinating"
Please read and understand the question first before posting.
thanks.

Building an executable from scratch is hard. First, you'd need to generate machine code for what the program would do, and then you need to encapsulate such code in an executable file. That's overkill unless you want to write a compiler for a language.
These utilities that generate a self-extracting executable don't really make the executable from scratch. They have the executable pre-generated, and the data file is just appended to the end of it. Since the Windows executable format allows you to put data at the end of the file, caring only for the "real executable" part (the exe header tells how big it is - the rest is ignored).
For instance, try to generate two self-extracting zip, and do a binary diff on them. You'll see their first X KBytes are exactly the same, what changes is the rest, which is not an executable at all, it's just data. When the file is executed, it looks what is found at the end of the file (the data) and unzips it.
Take a look at the wikipedia entry, go to the external links section to dig deeper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable
I only mentioned Windows here but the same principles apply to Linux. But don't expect to have cross-platform results, you'll have to re-implement it to each platform. I couldn't imagine something that's more platform-dependent than the executable file. Even if you use C# you'll have to generate the native stub, which is different if you're running on Windows (under .net) or Linux (under Mono).

Invoke a compiler with data generated by your program (write temp files to disk if necessary) and or stored on disk?
Or is the question about the details of writing the local executable format?

Unfortunately with compiled languages such as C, C++, Java, or C#, you won't be able to just ``run'' new code at runtime, like you can do in interpreted languages like PHP, Perl, and ECMAscript. The code has to be compiled first, and for that you will need a compiler. There's no getting around this.
If you need to duplicate the save/restore functionality between two separate EXEs, then your best bet is to create a static library shared between the two programs, or a DLL shared between the two programs. That way, you write that code once and it's able to be used by as many programs as you want.
On the other hand, if you're really running into a scenario like this, my main question is, What are you trying to accomplish with this? Even in languages that support things like eval(), self modifying code is usually some of the nastiest and bug-riddled stuff you're going to find. It's worse even than a program written completely with GOTOs. There are uses for self modifying code like this, but 99% of the time it's the wrong approach to take.
Hope that helps :)

I had the same problem and I think that this solves all problems.
You can put there whatever code and if correct it will produce at runtime second executable.
--ADD--
So in short you have some code which you can hard-code and store in the code of your 1st exe file or let outside it. Then you run it and you compile the aforementioned code. If eveything is ok you will get a second executable runtime- compiled. All this without any external lib!!

Ok, so I was wondering how one would
go about creating a program, that
creates a second program
You can look at CodeDom. Here is a tutorial

Have you considered embedding a scripting language such as Lua or Python into your app? This will give you the ability to dynamically generate and execute code at runtime.
From wikipedia:
Dynamic programming language is a term used broadly in computer science to describe a class of high-level programming languages that execute at runtime many common behaviors that other languages might perform during compilation, if at all. These behaviors could include extension of the program, by adding new code, by extending objects and definitions, or by modifying the type system, all during program execution. These behaviors can be emulated in nearly any language of sufficient complexity, but dynamic languages provide direct tools to make use of them.

Depending on what you call a program, Self-modifying code may do the trick.
Basically, you write code somewhere in memory as if it were plain data, and you call it.
Usually it's a bad idea, but it's quite fun.

Application-wide Restriction of objects, methods etc

I have a very theoretical question: Is there a way to ban the use of some methods, objects etc. inside of my application/project map in C#, .Net and/or Visual Studio?
To be more specific: I'm developing a DMS System where it should never be possible to delete files from an archive. The archived files are just files inside a Windows folder structure.
So, whenever someone tries to perform a System.IO.File.Delete() this should be forbidden. Instead I would force to use a custom-made FileDelete()-method which always ensures that the file to delete is not a file from inside an archive.
(This doesn't have to happen automatically. It's ok when there is an error/exception that informs the developer of a banned method-call.)
Another way to implement this could be to observe all calls of System.IO.File.Delete() at runtime, catch them and execute my own FileDelete()-method.
Of course these are a really theoretical questions but I would just know if there could be a way to implement this.
P.S.: I'm using C# with Visual Studio 2005. So it doesn't matter if I can realize this through my programming language or by Visual Studio (or by any other way I forgot).

Wouldn't it be simpler to control delete permissions to the archived files?

you can define methods and adorn them with declarative security attributes
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dswfd229.aspx
HTH

The closest I can come to a solution is to write you own System.IO.File class and keeping that in exe project. That way you'll get a ambiguity compile error that can be resolved with giving you own implementation in an alias (using File=System.IO.File, Version=[version], cultuer=[correct culture], publicKey=[public key]). If you're unsure about what to write make a break point and write something like ?typeof(System.IO.File).AssemblyQualifiedName in the immediate window.
It's not bullet proof but at least it will enforce the developer to be concious about the decision and you could even (tho I personally wouldn't do it) change the default class template to include the using directive for every class

Not for existing library functions.
For your own code, you could apply code-access-security on methods, but code running as "full trust" will breeze past this; so to check for abuse via reflection you would probably have to check the caller manually (Assembly.GetCallingAssembly) - which is painful and still not 100% robust...
There is specific file/IO permissions, but again full trust will ignore it.
I think "no" is a safer answer.

One way you could go about doing this is to create a special user account and only grant that account the permissions necessary to remove the files.
Just keep in mind that the user is in control of his computer (if he has administrative privileges ;) and while you can put some obstacles in his way there really is nothing you can do about it (and that's the way it should be).

What about writing your own FxCop rule for that case?
With such a rule it will be impossible to compile if you treat warnings as errors.