AutoIt3Wrapper_Res_Fileversion

[Tankbuster]

Hello,

I use the #AutoIt3Wrapper_Res_Fileversion, but I noticed on my systems that the Fileversion is always updated after the compile.

Example: Exe Properties: 1.0.0.1

but in the code after the compile:#AutoIt3Wrapper_Res_Fileversion=1.0.0.2

I guess it is possible to solve this. I searched the forum but I missed somehow the solution.

Is there a wrapper sequence config file (like first update than compile)

, or is it caused by other wrapper settings like Tidy? What is wrong in my configuration/installation?

Currently I use the #AutoIt3Wrapper_Res_FileVersion_AutoIncrement=P and compile two times (first with update and the next without updating)

Could some one please scratch my back on this itching thing?

//edit:

Just thinking why it could be a feature:

Is the intention of the feature:

1) CODE version 1

2) backup code version 1 to folder backup

3) compile

4) increase counter for next compile

So the shown version is more for the next compile than the current one, because the previous is stored in backup?

(Using tools like mercurial, it looks strange because I want code and exe in the same version stored...)

So is it a feature from this point of view?

//edit2:

Sorry for the double post. I have no idea why double, but I will try to clean it up.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Tankbuster

[Melba23]

Tankbuster,

With the #AutoIt3Wrapper_Res_FileVersion_AutoIncrement directive set to P you should get a prompt asking if you to want to advance the FileVersion each time you compile. I certainly do - do you?

M23

Edit: I see you edited the other of your posts rather than this one. Yes - it is the source that is updated, the compiled file keeps whatever Version number you had before you compiled.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Melba23

[Tankbuster]

Sorry for the double post, was not done intentionally. I marked the other post with a link to this. i hope it does not confuse others...

Just questioning, is there a way (configurable) to have the sequence:

1) Update version

2) no backup

3) compile

with wrapper?

I already asked myself this time before but there was no answer just some sound of silence In my idea I would like to have stored the exe and the code in the same version in mercurial. If not possible, I have to adopt to the behaviour because it's not that important.

[Jos]

Sorry for the double post, was not done intentionally. I marked the other post with a link to this. i hope it does not confuse others...

Just questioning, is there a way (configurable) to have the sequence:

1) Update version

2) no backup

3) compile

with wrapper?

I already asked myself this time before but there was no answer just some sound of silence In my idea I would like to have stored the exe and the code in the same version in mercurial. If not possible, I have to adopt to the behaviour because it's not that important.

AutoIt3Wrapper is not coded like that. The assumption is that you work on a version and after you "tell" Autoit3wrapper to increase the version it will:

- compile the source

- update the version number in the source

I do not understand "2) no backup"

Jos

[Tankbuster]

@Jos:

In some autoit systems there is a subfolder called "backup" and every time I compile a backup with a name pattern like @scriptname_old#.au3 is placed inside. I do not remember how I did this.

And yes, I have to adopt my head to the given logic. For me it is no problem that the version increases every time I compile . I thought because it offers a 4 segment pattern x.x.x.x it should work like this.

If I'm finishing a milestone (big word :-) ) I increase manually the next segment.

I'm not afraid of versions. But others may think only one after the other and not skipping a single version on release/rollout.

But as you see already in my first post, I understood the logic behind. And yes it makes sense from that point of view.

It looks like I'm the only person with such a strange idea. An optional

Update_Directive($Full_source, $directives, "#AutoIt3Wrapper_Res_Fileversion", $INP_Fileversion, "", "")

before compile (I guess this the method to update the code) will not be a must-have-before-christmas feature for all....

Anyway, Thank you (both) for your info.

[Jos]

@Jos:

In some autoit systems there is a subfolder called "backup" and every time I compile a backup with a name pattern like @scriptname_old#.au3 is placed inside. I do not remember how I did this.

That's Easy: Run SciTEconfig which has an option for it in the main window that will set the following line in au3.properties:

#define the number of backup files you want to keep   0=none
backup.files=0

And yes, I have to adopt my head to the given logic. For me it is no problem that the version increases every time I compile . I thought because it offers a 4 segment pattern x.x.x.x it should work like this.

If I'm finishing a milestone (big word :-) ) I increase manually the next segment.

I'm not afraid of versions. But others may think only one after the other and not skipping a single version on release/rollout.

But as you see already in my first post, I understood the logic behind. And yes it makes sense from that point of view.

It looks like I'm the only person with such a strange idea. An optional

Update_Directive($Full_source, $directives, "#AutoIt3Wrapper_Res_Fileversion", $INP_Fileversion, "", "")

before compile (I guess this the method to update the code) will not be a must-have-before-christmas feature for all....

Anyway, Thank you (both) for your info.

Understand how it can be changed ..... I wrote it , remember

I have no issue to make changes to Autoit3Wrpper but there has to be a common interest for it (or need for myself for it ).

Jos

[Tankbuster]

Thank you for the "backup" info.

Now all I have to do is find another 100000 user to support my request. NP - I like (what my boss calls it): challenging tasks

Anyway I thank you for the wrapper. And I already kicked my mind to the other way of thinking of versioning.

I think we could "close" this one.