PDA

View Full Version : MSI validation



Jennifer
05-11-2006, 05:32 PM
I would like to know if there have been any enhancements made to properly reporting validation errors. I seem to have a lot of validation errors in my installation but when I try to resolve these errors (via InstallShield support) I am told that the errors I am getting can be ignored. But it seems that if these errors can be ignored then they should not be errors at all.
Opinions?

Christopher Painter
05-11-2006, 05:46 PM
Hence why I normally don't bother with validation... :) I've seen too many "build warnings" become "install errors" when I try resolving some of those warnings.

Jennifer
05-11-2006, 06:02 PM
Well, according to posts by other users, they pretty much ignore validation warnings/errors also.

MartinMarkevics
05-11-2006, 09:15 PM
Warning are sometimes OK to ignore, but errors are almost never OK to ignore. Even if they don't necessarily cause you runtime errors or any other problems that you see immediately, they might come back to bite you later (for example, when you create a patch, upgrade or something along those lines).

What kind or warnings\errors do you get? Perhaps we can help resolve them here or at least provide more info to make a better judgement about what to do in your case?

It should be noted that we added some validation errors in the 12.0 release (maybe that's what you're seeing). Most are specific to validation for Vista logo compliance. As an example, one of ISICEs checks that all .exes and .dlls are digitally signed. If your not targeting Vista or don't care about logo, then perhaps that's something you choose to ignore.

Another thing we added in this release is the capability to turn off certain ICEs. If you don't care about particular error\warning you can go to Tools | Options | Validation | Customize and turn off the particular ICE (or ISICE).

Having said that, I have no idea what kinds of errors\warnings you are getting so it's hard to comment any further until we have more info.

Jennifer
05-12-2006, 11:11 AM
I get an ICE18 validation error that says I must author a directory/component pair in the CreateFolders table. But the directory is INSTALLDIR. Why do I need to enter INSTALLDIR in the CreateFolders table? Better yet why isn't it authored in the CreateFolders table by InstallShield?

I get an ICE30 validation error saying that I have a file that is being installed by two components. One of the components listed is in a merge module. I checked the merge module and I do not have any duplicates of the file listed in the validation error. Since ICE30 checks short file names I think the error is reporting that the files bbcomposer.ico (in the installation project) and bbcompile.ico (in the merge module project) are both resolving to the same short file name. I was told this error can also be ignored.

Jennifer
05-12-2006, 11:46 AM
Another validation error that I get is from ICE03, when I author files in the RemoveFile table. These files are not installed by my installation but get created. Since I want them to be removed during uninstall, I created an entry for them in the RemoveFile table. But doing this causes an "Invalid filename/usage of wildcards" error that I was told can also be ignored.

But overall, I have been ignoring these validation errors since they have not caused any installation errors during runtime.

looeee
05-15-2006, 10:41 AM
Jennifer

This forum is not really the best place to discuss your validation errors, but anyway I'll give it a go.

The ICE18 you have described is caused by you having a component installed to the INSTALLDIR without having set a keypath. If your component contains files then one of them should be the keypath. If it contains registry data then one of those should be the keypath.
Having no keypath means that the folder itself is the keypath (the default setting for a component) which is why it is insisting you have a createfolder entry for it.

I think that you are correct about cause of the ICE30 being the two different files having the same short file names. Your best bet would be to go to the file table and give it a unique alternative short file name.
What would the risk be of leaving it as-is? Do any of your customers use Novadigm for distributing the package? If they do then Novadigm insists on its install source being uncompressed short file names so your package may fail for those customers.

For the ICE03, what entries are giving you the problem?

looeee

Jennifer
05-15-2006, 10:55 AM
It's not so much about the errors but the fact that the errors can be ignored without causing installation errors (at least none that I have been made aware of)

looeee
05-15-2006, 11:03 AM
I don't understand what you are asking

If you are asking which errors/warnings can always be ignored, then the answer is "none of them"

Each error/warning should be considered and many of them can be ignored, depending on the circumstances.

Christopher Painter
05-15-2006, 11:35 AM
I can think of several warnings that are on my "always ignore" list.... :)