230 replies to this topic

[ViroMan]

Progress report:
I have maby 15-20% of the code converted. Had to make a few functions to mimic ones in VB but, not hard really. Thankfully the code is not overly convoluted.

[_def_x_]

Excellent

Work at a pace comfortable to you, when you're done, you're done - no rush.

I'm not sure if this premature, maybe not possible, can you program the app to throw off understandable (English readable) error messages rather than cryptic hex or something? Let's say the app fails to connect to the internet, rather than give off error 0x135, it may translate it to "Cannot connect to the internet, please check your connection!"

When it's time I'll help you put together documentation (User, QuickStart, Troubleshooting Guides), this is something the project never really had, again, when the time is appropriate.

[ViroMan]

Quote

Let's say the app fails to connect to the internet, rather than give off error 0x135, it may translate it to "Cannot connect to the internet, please check your connection!"

Ohh god yes. There is nothing more upsetting then getting crap like that. When I come to the programmers chosen error condition tests "On Error GoTo"(which is a catch all statement) I convert them to try statements. This allows me to catch individual errors and report them much easier. Not to mention its a much better way to do things rather then use goto statements... <shiver>

Going through this VB code is horrid... not the originals programmers skill but, the fact that its VB code. It takes soo much effort to do things which is easy in c++, im literally cutting out 20%+ of extra crap in each source file.

[dfdff3000]

Just a dumb question here that really doesn't pertain to me . I'm a lowly user and not a programmer of any sort. I just had a brain f@rt and was wondering if the script writing process would basically remain the same. Considering that there is only one release maintainer now (and it sounds like perhaps a few in training - which is good news) I thought it might discourage them if there were a huge learning curve to writing scripts for a new tool.

Aside from that ... it looks like ViroMan has come a long way in a short time. It looks extremely promising.

[ViroMan]

when I get the update tool finished(to a point we generally agree that is its fine, addons aside) I will look at how the modules are created. I will get get together with the ones who currently maintain the modules and see where I can streamline/automate the process.

Quote

Aside from that ... it looks like ViroMan has come a long way in a short time. It looks extremely promising.

<beaming with pride>
While I won't say im an excellent programmer or even a great one, I do have diligence and a need to constantly improve my code.


hmm... I update this thread so much I might as well call it a blog... lol

Edited by ViroMan, 09 June 2011 - 01:54 AM.

[ViroMan]

Progress report:
30% converted. Had to create a few more functions to mimic VB code. Also made other functions that made things smoother and had to go back and make changes to several spots in the code I already converted to use them.(I can't stop myself from improving things that seem horribly inefficient)

Im probably gana see about making the code more Object Oriented Programming friendly. ATM its a collection of C++ files. Its getting on my nerves. I love seeing OOP its so simple and easy to manage.

[_def_x_]

Do we need a features request thread, a 'must-have' and 'would-be-nice' list? I don't want to get in the way of your work, just don't want to have you say (write) "why didn't you mention this earlier"

[ViroMan]

A list would be great so I don't have to read 30+ threads to get the gist of needs. But like I said... I will try to refrain from changing too much till I get the current code converted and tested to work like the VB one does(without the bugs the VB one has).

<off topic>
When I get this all converted to C++ im sure we can find more people to help with the project. No one really wants to convert one language into another. VB isn't used much(from what I have seen) but, C++ is everywhere. Im doing it cuz I think this project has potential and its good to see how other people code things and can give me ideas myself(expand my horizons and what not). So we both get things out of this.

Edited by ViroMan, 11 June 2011 - 12:43 PM.

[_def_x_]

True, C++ is pretty universal.

I assure you AutoPatcher has a user base, it has many years of service under it's belt, 8 or more. Most of the problems come from a lack of movement in the code, few new features, unresolved bugs. Also the time it takes to update a script and create the apm files. If this new app really is what Autopatcher and APUP should be, it will make updating a working system a breeze and will become very popular. Most projects focus on creating a new install disk, nLite, HFSLIP... not many free tools do what AutoPatcher does, as well anyway, or they use DOS commands or VB scripts.

The process of displaying the updates, listing them - 'Ready To Install', 'Installed', 'Not Now', if this process could be streamlined, and the ability to know ahead of time the available commands the update can use thru scanning the updates, and using a database (whatever works) of available switches, adding new files would be no harder than dropping the file in a folder, rescanning. The update and the list of commands would be displayed with the default pre-selected /quiet /norestart. This sounds like an advanced users dream, the ability to customize the switch database, and the ability to add and remove them as needed. You could add any number of file types, if you know the available switches, you could create sub categories for files you install repeatedly, Firefox, whatever, add/remove files from the folder contents, rescan, and create a new file install routine.

Anyway, I invited a former team member to come by and check things out, don't know if he will. He had mentioned open source(ing) the project, I guess this would eliminate the need to sign the releases.

There's a lot to be excited about, I want to avoid overwhelming you with too many ideas but a base feature set and a clear idea of what the app should accomplish is needed - use AutoPatcher and APUP is a good start

[ViroMan]

Quote

or they use DOS commands

VB APUP uses dos commands too.

Quote

adding new files would be no harder than dropping the file in a folder

I was thinking of implementing drag&drop instead. Drag what ever files to be added to a module into a window and it adds em. So a window of files and next to that window a list of commands attached to that file. perhaps 3rd window so you can pick and drag commands? ohh well its in the future anyways.

Quote

I guess this would eliminate the need to sign the releases.

well I don't really think its necessary to sign them anyways as long as the user downloaded apms from the site they know its good right?

I was even thinking that since I read somewhere on here that Microsoft occasional changes the downloads for some reason but, they are still the right ones.. we could have the module manager program notice that. Im not really sure how to do that without downloading the whole thing except to ask the Microsoft server if the file size has changed and if it has download it to re md5 it.

Edited by ViroMan, 11 June 2011 - 02:32 PM.

[_def_x_]

Quote

VB APUP uses dos commands too.

My bad What I meant was batch files.

Which by the way reminds me, since you're looking at the code - I wanted to add a reminder message to the script that 'prints' to the log file, I'm not sure if APUP can use other commands not mentioned in the docs:

Spoiler

• PreAction=rmdir /S /Q
  
• PreAction.FolderDelete
  
• PreAction.FileDelete
  
• PreAction=del
  
• PreAction.RenameFile
  
• PreAction.RenameFolder
  
• PreAction.FileMove
  
• PreAction=move /y
  
• PreAction.MoveFolder

I'm not sure if this would work:

PreAction=echo "For log file posting guidance please see the pinned topics here - http://www.autopatcher.com/forums/blahblahblah/"

It's apparent APUP will print to the log file, I wonder if an additional form of 'print' could be added in 'PreAction' or ???

[ViroMan]

apup will be able to do any commands you guys want it to. just give me a list. You don't need to think in dos command terms either. If you want a new command tell me what it should do and ill arrange it.

As for the logging action of apup I plan to make it more verbose with levels of verbosity from simple overview of whats going on down to logging every action taken/decided. Yes you would also be able to add to the log.

Edited by ViroMan, 11 June 2011 - 11:57 PM.

[_def_x_]

ViroMan said:

apup will be able to do any commands you guys want it to. just give me a list.

Sounds good. Actually, I was asking if APUP can do something like this now based on what you see in the existing code.

As for ideas, I have many, keeping in line with AutoPatcher's goals. I don't want to overwhelm though! Short version, a 3 (or 4) tabbed tool to install updates, create scripts, download team member or user created scripts, and create system profiles (my.xpx86, wifes.7x64, work.accounts.box). When the app is run you're met with a task pane window - "What type of task would you like to perform : 'Patching', 'Scripting', 'Updating', 'Profiling'?"

autoPATCHER::autoSCRIPTER::autoUPDATER::autoPROFILER

I'll put my concept in Spoiler - easier to read. I will update as things come to mind or you say "way too sophisticated" or "no way" I figure you wont be able to create some of the code, likely professional programmer stuff or beyond Borland 6 so no worries if you can't do something.

Spoiler

Patching: Installing updates to the system. Pretty straight forward: ability to chain install multiple updates, exe, msi, etc, with a single reboot. Nice appearance, easy to understand interface, plenty of update detail visible to user, helpful dialog boxes, selection, confirmation, warning messages. Logging. Full system detection, OS, SPLevel, IE, DirectX, .NET, Windows Installer, WMP, ...

Updating: Downloading a new or updating an existing release. Features like any good download manager, maybe with better capabilities for difficult links. Logging.

Scripting: A sophisticated scripting feature that aids the release manager while creating or maintaining scripts. Lots of auto-generated content. One feature might be the creation of an apm-like file (if one is needed) that's created with info added to the script during the building process: file name, more info link, OS info (XP SP3) - is auto-generated and placed in the same folder when kbxxx update is downloaded. Can be user edited to make more robust. Of course, the apm-like file will need to work in conjunction with the Patching phase so will need to contain the details appropriate to the task.

A time saver might be - auto-generate kbxxx removal commands. Load the script to edit out obsolete updates, (or add messages that print to the log), select kbxxx from the list, the tool auto-creates the necessary details in the script to remove the update - the lines we add -> PreAction=rmdir /S /Q "" & PreAction=del "". A single-click action that moves an update - file/folder (within the script) from 'download to' to 'remove from'. When a user runs the script the update (or folder) and any associated file will be deleted - any combination of update/folder/apm-like file can be removed.

Profiling: The ability to create (tool scan, or user added info for greater detail) an in depth system profile (saved) that gathers detailed system info (OS, SP level, .NET, IE etc) which works in concert with the detail in the apm-like file that governs what is listed for installation, meaning, based on the loaded system profile, and the profile of the update, if the 2 are compatible the update will be available. Also, a list of updates to create an 'install-routine' profile - the 20 updates every XP SP3 system should install kind of thing. You load the profile, maybe an auto-created quick script is created and the user can use this to install (if not already done) the 20 most important updates right from the get go. AutoPatcher has a few switches that aid in the selection of updates, this is a more robust feature that can create and load any number of configurations, this might be useful for a tech that has many systems to update, their not all the same so he creates profiles.

The updates have to be available (downloaded), scanned into the database, once they are, custom scripts can be created. This saves time from having to select (or deselect) updates that only install on certain systems - or those that can install but you want to ignore them.

[ViroMan]

Quote

Sounds good. Actually, I was asking if APUP can do something like this now based on what you see in the existing code.

No, it currently doesn't support more then those commands but, if it was just that string you wanted, I could make log output say that with one extra line of code.

Quote

I figure you wont be able to create some of the code, likely professional programmer stuff or beyond Borland 6 so no worries if you can't do something.

ahh ahha... it hurts. Don't say that. im not incompetent. Anything can be done with c++ given research into the situation. Borland 6 can do anything the newer ones can do. It just doesn't have the newer tools or more streamlined gui. What it lacks int tools I can make/have made up for in codding. The only thing I refuse to code is drivers.

Anyways did you want that all in one tool or did you want an update tool and a release management tool?

APUP already profiles your system. It just doesn't save it, it doesn't check IE ver either.

So you want to be able to create a profile for a different computer by selecting what the OS is and so on so you can download updates based on that?

[_def_x_]

ViroMan said:

No, it currently doesn't support more then those commands but,

No, don't create more work for yourself, not on the existing APUP code.

ViroMan said:

ahh ahha... it hurts. Don't say that. im not incompetent.

I wouldn't and I'm not, I know nothing of your work, plus it would be mean to imply that. Maybe what I'm thinking is if I get too pumped up I will only be disappointed, so maybe I keep expectations low. I'm looking forward to having the user base beta test, offer feedback, more ideas

ViroMan said:

Anyways did you want that all in one tool or did you want an update tool and a release management tool?

APUP already profiles your system. It just doesn't save it, it doesn't check IE ver either.

I thought we had been talking about a single application, maybe separating the tasks by tabs or new Windows. If a second executable is easier, we do this now (autopatcher.exe & apup.exe), make that 3 if you add 'editor.exe' This is where having a single application helps the communication process. In fact, I'm not sure why the functionality of reboot.exe and capcab.exe were not coded directly into AutoPatcher and APUP code instead of calling the executables.

APUP (download manager) does detect the OS of the machine that launches apup.exe, what I was referring to (Patching: above) is AutoPatcher (autopatcher.exe), the AutoPatcher log lists the Components I mentioned.

ViroMan said:

So you want to be able to create a profile for a different computer by selecting what the OS is and so on so you can download updates based on that?

Well, we can come back to this, it may or may not be a needed feature. I need to clarify my idea in my own head.

What I don't want to do is stifle the brain-storming process, get it out there (within reason), and slowly reduce to the best features with a clear idea of the process (function). I suppose we need to get some concepts going, sketches, flow diagrams -> clicking 'this' opens 'this' window with 'these' lists of available options.

Small chunks or sub routines of the larger tasks, eventually comprising the app as a whole. I need a project management book

[ViroMan]

Quote

What I don't want to do is stifle the brain-storming process

well that + get more then just you and me talking about this.

Hey you lurkers POST your ideas. Make a new thread for your ideas and discuss them there.

[_def_x_]

ViroMan said:

well that + get more then just you and me talking about this.

Too many times users have requested a new script, we remind them priority one are the OS releases. We always offer to help build a script and offer to sign it - how many times have we received something - I can count them on 'no hands'.

You can wait, I'm sure the requests will roll in (maybe not) but it's the few release maintainers that do the work so I figure the opinions matter most coming from those who build and maintain.

What was the movie quote - "build it and they will come", or was it "ask them to help you build it and you both can use it". Since it sounds like you want more voices I may step aside and let you dialog with other users, this is reasonable, I don't want to hog the ideas. I'm sure you can throw something together without more input from me.

I've been spending more time here than I wanted to and I do need to attend to some business. I'll get back in a couple weeks and see how things are. Strangely I thought I would get more feedback with the update to XP SP3, only 3 downloads of the test .md5 file. The good thing with that is maybe more users are moving to 7 which would free me up from the XP script. You may think about a Windows 7 only tool, maybe look to Windows 8.

I'll check back in 2 weeks, 30 days at most.

[ViroMan]

well I didn't mean to tell you to shut up. you and Cristiano are the only one for me to converse with on this atm lol. I don't even want to think about windows 8. I don't even want to try making any program for windows 8 if they really do make that bubble interface crap.(not a permanent view)

Edited by ViroMan, 12 June 2011 - 02:07 PM.

[click-click]

>Strangely I thought I would get more feedback with the update to XP SP3

I did not realize you had updated XP, so I updated and ran AP across my system. I made a comment
in the AutoPatcher for Windows XP SP3 (x86) thread.

[_def_x_]

ViroMan said:

well I didn't mean to tell you to shut up.

No, No, that's not what I was getting at by my comment.

We discuss beta issues in the BetaTeam forum (ideally). I know you can't see the forum now - alpha / beta development projects get ironed out in private, when a reasonable project can be advertised for more testing & opinion we provide a link.

Also, we have 5 or 6 people available to dialog with now - me, you, Domenico (dkdk_it), Cristiano, excalibur, and one former team member should they decide to come back. Between the 5 or 6 of us we should be able to get something going. We can add (via PM) click-click, DesertJerry, and others to the list of users who may want to contribute ideas and do preliminary testing - this brings the total project team to 7 or 8, this is plenty from my perspective. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

I mentioned in post #5 BetaTeam so we can get this thing going with the gory details kept private until a working tool is ready for public scrutiny.

Think about it, now would be a good time to get out. No one can stop you at any point of course. I would rather you back out now and avoid being dismayed if you don't have 50 users making comments about your work. Not much has been said about AutoPatcher over the last 7 years, despite the silence they keep downloading the logs confirm it.

If / When you're ready we can move forward and work with the group we have, which is an excellent group. The 8 or so of us I'm sure can put together an excellent new application

As far as my absence for a time, this won't hinder the work on the existing code, will it? I have a commitment to another project I can't ignore either.