The DLL files under _bin_deployableAssemblies belongs to SQL Compact....
apparently do not get installed via Nuget (neither with Microsoft.SqlServer.Compact 4.0.8854 or EntityFramework.SqlServerCompact 6.1.1). Exclude the _bin_deployableAssemblies from Git and when a co-worker cloned the project only "shadow" copies of the dll files were present. The automatic build copy process from _bin_deployableAssemblies to bin failed for him.
Don't have a history of my Nuget installations but I suspect either a package setup up this dll or I did it somehow in the solution.
Read Michael Dudley's blog about pushing SQL Compact with projects. Along with a Nuget setup that tries to address 4.0.0.1 assemblies.
Is there a reason why these dll are missing when cloning the project? Why the shadow copies then?
Is there a reason why these dll are missing when cloning the project?
Perhaps because executable files and bin directories aren't usually considered source files under version control.
Why the shadow copies then?
The "shadow" copies are presumably the items in the project file, i.e. the DLLs are identified in the project file
I have some c# projects. I added post build event to those projects that copy the resulted assembly (dll) from the bin into common folder.
It appears that each compile generates assembly which is binary different from the previous even when I don't modify the project files.
It is quite a problem for me since I'm using Kiln that monitor those file and think they were modified.
I read somewhere that the dll stores time stamp of compilation which if true then I cannot fix this. If so how do you manage your shared DLL in such a way that your repository (Git/HG) doesn't commit all your compiled projects that weren't modified?
Thanks,
Eran.
To address the specific question of "How do you manage your shared DLL in such a way that your repository (Git/HG) doesn't commit all your compiled projects that weren't modified?", I have a very simple answer: ignore.
We exclude /bin and /obj from the directories which our source control will even attempt to commit. This does mean that you will need to recompile the code on each machine after each change, but Visual Studio would do that anyway for any project where the code has changed.
Don't commit the output folders of your projects.
If you want to have a Setup folder or something similar that always contains the latest versions of the assemblies created by your projects, the solution is to make sure that your post-build event is configured to run only when the build updates the project output. There is an option that is named like this:
Our project has a lot of external DLLs, most but not all of which are 3rd party DLLs.
Currently we do not have these DLLs included in our project. They are included in SVN and given a path to our build output directory. So, after building our project the neccessary files are there, because of SVN, but the project itself has no knowledge of them.
My feeling is that we should have a folder under the root of our project named something like Dependancies or ThirdParty with all of the DLLs included there and set their build event to copy to the output directory. They would exist in SVN as well, but in the same structure as the project, not in the build output directory.
The project itself only references one of these DLLs called CommunicationProc.DLL. The CommunicationProc.DLL then references all of the other DLLs. We have numerous DLLs to support different types of radio. So not all DLLs will be used, but any one of them may be used depending on the radio type.
As to whether or not the DLLs should be included in the project we have differing opinions internally, some of the team beleives they should only be in SVN and not part of the project itself.
Of note is that this are not .NET DLLs, most are old C DLLs.
What is the accepted practice? Can someone please provide me with a compelling arguement one way or the other as to whether to include them in the project or just SVN?
Its better to have them in a folder on source control and then copy them over to the debug folder on build event. This way you can manage their versions. If a newer version of some dll comes then you can replace the old one and put some comments with check in. Also if you are working in a team, then instead of copying files from debug folder to each team member, you can let each team member to use the same set of dlls from source control. If you are developing some control and want your customers to use that control then its easier for you to have a set of dependent dlls some where so that you can give those to your customer along with your .Net dlls.
I had the same issue with some un-managed dlls and ended up putting them in a folder so that all the team members have the same version of the dlls. Hope this helps.
I include a project that has no code but contains a folder where all the external assemblies and their dependencies are kepts. For each file set the Build Action to None and Copy to Output as Do Not Copyp. The project then references the binaries from this location. In your other projects, reference this special project. When you build, because the special project is referenced and it references all the needed dependencies, the binaries are copied as needed.
If you do not want a special project, still create the folder in your main project, added the assemblies, set their properties, then reference the assemblies as needed.
This gives you complete control over the versions and output, and more importantly, it is simple.
I found out that build time of C# solution with many projects gets much faster if you don't have "copy local" enabled everywhere. I did some tests and it seems that (for our solution at least) we could increase build time by factor 2-3 just by removing "Copy local". This probably means we have to store libraries in some common directory.
Any suggestion/best practices how to acheive this? Note that I would like to keep references to projects, not to DLLs.
We retarget the output directory of projects to be ../../Debug (or ../../Release)
Our libs are placed in these directories as well.
We set the reference paths in each project to be the Debug or Release directory accordingly (this setting is persisted in the user files since it is an absolute rather than relative reference)
We keep project references as project references, All dll references have copy local false and specific version false unless they are system level dlls we know will be in the GAC on all deployed machines.
This works a treat and manual builds in the IDE mimic scripted builds from the command line (using MSBuild)
Test projects not for deployment do not direct their output to the centralized Debug|Release directory, they just use the standard default location (and do use copy local to avoid issues with locking)
The library versions may be changed by the automated build process replacing the dlls in the Debug and Release directories.
I recommend building to ..\..\Build if your application is spread across solutions. (If you only have one solution, you may consider ..\Build.) Visual studio will, by default, pick up reference files in it's output folder. When building without VS using MSBuild, though, you must add the build folder as a reference path as shown in the example below:
<Target Name="BuildApp">
<MSBuild
Projects="#(ProjectReference)"
Targets="Rebuild"
Properties="ReferencePath=..\..\Build;$(LibraryFolder)" >
</MSBuild>
<OnError ExecuteTargets="BuildFailed" />
</Target>
The example also takes me to my second argument. I do not think you should use your build folder as library folder, since this may lead to individual projects erroneously overwriting library assemblies e.g. by using Copy Local. You should have strict control over your library versions, so I suggest you keep this separated. (Developers would need to add this path in VS as a reference path.)
You may also choose to separate ..\..\Build into ..\..\Release and ..\..\Debug as suggested by ShuggyCoUk.
I like the top level Bin Lib folder setup that is common in Unix based systems, by the way moving to this type of system will also make your release engineer's life a lot easier as well. Installer Creation is much simplified by only having to pull everyhting out of one folder. Dll's would then go in bin..
Do you use ILMerge? Do you use ILMerge to merge multiple assemblies to ease deployment of dll's? Have you found problems with deployment/versioning in production after ILMerging assemblies together?
I'm looking for some advice in regards to using ILMerge to reduce deployment friction, if that is even possible.
I use ILMerge for almost all of my different applications. I have it integrated right into the release build process so what I end up with is one exe per application with no extra dll's.
You can't ILMerge any C++ assemblies that have native code.
You also can't ILMerge any assemblies that contain XAML for WPF (at least I haven't had any success with that). It complains at runtime that the resources cannot be located.
I did write a wrapper executable for ILMerge where I pass in the startup exe name for the project I want to merge, and an output exe name, and then it reflects the dependent assemblies and calls ILMerge with the appropriate command line parameters. It is much easier now when I add new assemblies to the project, I don't have to remember to update the build script.
Introduction
This post shows how to replace all .exe + .dll files with a single combined .exe. It also keeps the debugging .pdb file intact.
For Console Apps
Here is the basic Post Build String for Visual Studio 2010 SP1, using .NET 4.0. I am building a console .exe with all of the sub-.dll files included in it.
"$(SolutionDir)ILMerge\ILMerge.exe" /out:"$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).all.exe" "$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).exe" "$(TargetDir)*.dll" /target:exe /targetplatform:v4,C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319 /wildcards
Basic hints
The output is a file "AssemblyName.all.exe" which combines all sub-dlls into one .exe.
Notice the ILMerge\ directory. You need to either copy the ILMerge utility into your solution directory (so you can distribute the source without having to worry about documenting the install of ILMerge), or change the this path to point to where ILMerge.exe resides.
Advanced hints
If you have problems with it not working, turn on Output, and select Show output from: Build. Check the exact command that Visual Studio actually generated, and check for errors.
Sample Build Script
This script replaces all .exe + .dll files with a single combined .exe. It also keeps the debugging .pdb file intact.
To use, paste this into your Post Build step, under the Build Events tab in a C# project, and make sure you adjust the path in the first line to point to ILMerge.exe:
rem Create a single .exe that combines the root .exe and all subassemblies.
"$(SolutionDir)ILMerge\ILMerge.exe" /out:"$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).all.exe" "$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).exe" "$(TargetDir)*.dll" /target:exe /targetplatform:v4,C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319 /wildcards
rem Remove all subassemblies.
del *.dll
rem Remove all .pdb files (except the new, combined pdb we just created).
ren "$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).all.pdb" "$(TargetName).all.pdb.temp"
del *.pdb
ren "$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).all.pdb.temp" "$(TargetName).all.pdb"
rem Delete the original, non-combined .exe.
del "$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).exe"
rem Rename the combined .exe and .pdb to the original project name we started with.
ren "$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).all.pdb" "$(TargetName).pdb"
ren "$(TargetDir)$(TargetName).all.exe" "$(TargetName).exe"
exit 0
We use ILMerge on the Microsoft application blocks - instead of 12 seperate DLL files, we have a single file that we can upload to our client areas, plus the file system structure is alot neater.
After merging the files, I had to edit the visual studio project list, remove the 12 seperate assmeblies and add the single file as a reference, otherwise it would complain that it couldnt find the specific assembly. Im not too sure how this would work on post deployment though, could be worth giving it a try.
I know this is an old question, but we not only use ILMerge to reduce the number of dependencies but also to internalise the "internal" dependencies (eg automapper, restsharp, etc) that are used by the utility. This means they are completely abstracted away, and the project using the merged utility doesn't need to know about them. This again reduces the required references in the project, and allows it to use / update its own version of the same external library if required.
We use ILMerge on quite a few projects. The Web Service Software Factory, for example produces something like 8 assemblies as its output. We merge all of those DLLs into a single DLL so that the service host will only have to reference one DLL.
It makes life somewhat easier, but it's not a big deal either.
We had the same problem with combining WPF dependencies .... ILMerge doesn't appear to deal with these. Costura.Fody worked perfectly for us however and took about 5 minutes to get going... a very good experience.
Just install with Nuget (selecting the correct default project in the Package Manager Console). It introduces itself into the target project and the default settings worked immediately for us.
It merges the all DLLs marked "Copy Local" = true and produces a merged .EXE (alongside the standard output), which is nicely compressed in size (much less than the total output size).
The license is MIT as so you can modify/distribute as required.
https://github.com/Fody/Costura/
Note that for windows GUI programs (eg WinForms) you'll want to use the /target:winexe switch. The /target:exe switch creates a merged console application.
I'm just starting out using ILMerge as part of my CI build to combine a lot of finely grained WCF contracts into a single library. It works very well, however the new merged lib can't easily co-exist with its component libraries, or other libs that depend on those component libraries.
If, in a new project, you reference both your ILMerged lib and also a legacy library that depends on one of the inputs you gave to ILMerge, you'll find that you can't pass any type from the ILMerged lib to any method in the legacy library without doing some sort of type mapping (e.g. automapper or manual mapping). This is because once everything's compiled, the types are effectively qualified with an assembly name.
The names will also collide but you can fix that using extern alias.
My advice would be to avoid including in your merged assembly any publicly available lib that your merged assembly exposes (e.g. via a return type, method/constructor parameter, field, property, generic...) unless you know for sure that the user of your merged assembly does not and will never depend on the free-standing version of the same library.
We ran into problems when merging DLLs that have resources in the same namespace. In the merging process one of the resource namespaces was renamed and thus the resources couldn't be located. Maybe we're just doing something wrong there, still investigating the issue.
We just started using ILMerge in our solutions that are redistributed and used in our other projects and so far so good. Everything seems to work okay. We even obfuscated the packaged assembly directly.
We are considering doing the same with the MS Enterprise Library assemblies.
The only real issue I see with it is versioning of individual assemblies from the package.
I recently had issue where I had ilmerged assembly in the assembly i had some classes these were being called via reflection in Umbraco opensource CMS.
The information to make the call via reflection was taken from db table that had assembly name and namespace of class that implemented and interface. The issue was that the reflection call would fail when dll was il merged however if dll was separate it all worked fine. I think issue may be similar to the one longeasy is having?
It seems to me like the #1 ILMerge Best Practice is Don't Use ILMerge. Instead, use SmartAssembly. One reason for this is that the #2 ILMerge Best Practice is to always run PEVerify after you do an ILMerge, because ILMerge does not guarantee it will correctly merge assemblies into a valid executable.
Other ILMerge disadvantages:
when merging, it strips XML Comments (if I cared about this, I would use an obfuscation tool)
it doesn't correctly handle creating a corresponding .pdb file
Another tool worth paying attention to is Mono.Cecil and the Mono.Linker [2] tool.
[2]: http:// www.mono-project.com/Linker