Dotfuscate

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Dotfuscate

Drunkard
I've just started using Hudson (literally) and find it a great product. I've been tasked with getting Hudson to build a C#.Net app.  So, I added the MSBuild plugin and it worked great. Pulled in the Nant plugin and it works great.  

Now for my problem: This is kind of out there, but I need to obfuscate the build.  We use Dotfuscate which works just fine from within VS or running an Nant script within a command window.  However, it fails when ran from Hudson.  Being new to this, I suspect it might need a plugin, but I'm not sure what the plugin would do. It appears that the license information is missing, but I'm really not sure.

The following is what occurs when an NANT is invoked from Hudson:  It starts and find Dotfuscate, but appears to try and start Dotfuscate in its UI mode (which may explain the missing license info).  But, the exec command uses args that tell Dotfuscate to run from a commandline...a similar thing happens if ran as an MSBuild postbuild step, or MSBuild trys to build a Dotfuscate/VS project.

test:

     [exec] Dotfuscator Professional Edition Version 4.4.1400.25260 Pre-build license. This software may not be used on binaries for general release.
     [exec] Copyright 2002-2008 PreEmptive Solutions, LLC All Rights Reserved.
     [exec] Use of this software implies acceptance of accompanying license agreement.
     [exec] LICENSED TO:
     [exec] SERIAL #:
     [exec] Showing a modal dialog box or form when the application is not running in UserInteractive mode is not a valid operation. Specify the ServiceNotification or DefaultDesktopOnly style to display a notification from a service application.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dotfuscate

Andrew Bayer
Is dotfuscate's license locked to a particular user? If so, you might want to make sure Hudson's running as that user.

A.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Drunkard <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've just started using Hudson (literally) and find it a great product. I've
been tasked with getting Hudson to build a C#.Net app.  So, I added the
MSBuild plugin and it worked great. Pulled in the Nant plugin and it works
great.

Now for my problem: This is kind of out there, but I need to obfuscate the
build.  We use Dotfuscate which works just fine from within VS or running an
Nant script within a command window.  However, it fails when ran from
Hudson.  Being new to this, I suspect it might need a plugin, but I'm not
sure what the plugin would do. It appears that the license information is
missing, but I'm really not sure.

The following is what occurs when an NANT is invoked from Hudson:  It starts
and find Dotfuscate, but appears to try and start Dotfuscate in its UI mode
(which may explain the missing license info).  But, the exec command uses
args that tell Dotfuscate to run from a commandline...a similar thing
happens if ran as an MSBuild postbuild step, or MSBuild trys to build a
Dotfuscate/VS project.

test:

    [exec] Dotfuscator Professional Edition Version 4.4.1400.25260
Pre-build license. This software may not be used on binaries for general
release.
    [exec] Copyright 2002-2008 PreEmptive Solutions, LLC All Rights
Reserved.
    [exec] Use of this software implies acceptance of accompanying license
agreement.
    [exec] LICENSED TO:
    [exec] SERIAL #:
    [exec] Showing a modal dialog box or form when the application is not
running in UserInteractive mode is not a valid operation. Specify the
ServiceNotification or DefaultDesktopOnly style to display a notification
from a service application.

--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Dotfuscate-tp1569956p1569956.html
Sent from the Hudson issues mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dotfuscate

Drunkard
That’s an excellent point…they are different...I'll investigate this further...thanks