During our training class we actually cover a section about setting up solutions and projects.  You can get a solution way too busy if you aren't careful.  Also, a project can belong to more than one solution.  In our meical app, I bet we have 15-20 different solutions with many more projects.  The thing is that we don't generally need all of these projects accessible at the same time.  We have setup projects which are projects that tie into our installation and conversion tools, solutions for different modules (i.e appointment scheduling, prescription writing, etc.) and then a primary basic solution that contains our base assemblies, custom UI assembly, and the entry point client.  Doing this makes it much easier to digest a project and drastically reduces Visual Studio IDE issues.

Trent,

I was wondering how you went trying to reproduce the problem?

I had removed the project from our solution, to see if it was the problem, but I put it back again after my test, believing that it was the proper place to put it.

Given your advice that the Setup project should be in a seperate solution, I'll see where that road takes me.

Thanks

Peter

No, I didn't know you were waiting on anything.  I assume that you are referring to the BO Mapper Customization Wizard?  I thought that we had identified your issue with the Setup project.  I have tried to reproduce this and did not have any issues, but as you had mentioned, once you removed the setup project your issue went away...I thought.  You should really have a separate solution for your setup projects anyway.  That is why I had not given any additional thought to this....were you waiting on something from me?

Any further thoughts?

Peter

Well, the VS setup projects can cause all types of issues, but I am not sure why this would cause a problem with the BO Mapper, but I will try to reproduce.

Yeah, I have posted on this quite a bit lately.  There are a lot of people wanting it Alphabetical...so we changed it...and then the people who wanted it the other way starting to make their opinion known...so this will be an option in future releases.

Trent,

I have discovered the cause of Peter's problem. I created a TMSInstallation project within our solution about a month ago (in VS2005 added a new project which was a Setup Project, with the project file TMSInstallation.vdproj. We've both changed to VS2008 since then) and it was about that time that the BOM wizard stopped working for both of us.

I had read previously in the forum that a new obscure project had caused problems in the past, so I decided to delete the TMSInstallation project from my workspace, and try the wizard. It worked perfectly. I recovered the project back from source control and the BOM wizard crashed again.

I hope this helps to identify solution

Peter

PS The BOM wizard has not been changed to show the fields of a BO in alphabetical order, but shows them in schema order (which I greatly prefer).

I will dig into the call stack to see if I can reproduce, but this is probably one of those things that we will definitely have to reproduce so that we can see what is actually going on.

This has already been discussed on another thread...we changed this due to high demand but once we did people wanted it the other way...so we are going to add an option as to how to return this so you will have the choice of how to display the fields.

Hi,

The Error: ----

This, or something similar, happened in 1.6.0 but I ignored it hoping that 1.6.5 would fix the issue. Given that it remains it may just be a problem in my environment. I have a solution with 50 projects and 150 BO's. When I open the Customize Wizard in the BO Mapper the "Populatin Tree View" message appears but after about 2 minutes is fails with this error:

NullReferenceException
  Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

Source     : MicroFour StrataFrame AddIns

Stack Trace:
   at MicroFour.StrataFrame.AddIns.DTEprojectsBO.FillProjects(String[] ProjectPaths)
   at MicroFour.StrataFrame.AddIns.PartialClassBuilderCustomizeWizard.ᜀ(ᜏ A_0)
   at MicroFour.StrataFrame.AddIns.PartialClassBuilderCustomizeWizard.ᜀ()
   at MicroFour.StrataFrame.AddIns.PartialClassBuilderCustomizeWizard.OnLoad(EventArgs e)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Form.OnCreateControl()
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.CreateControl(Boolean fIgnoreVisible)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.CreateControl()
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmShowWindow(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.ScrollableControl.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.ContainerControl.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Form.WmShowWindow(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Form.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativewindow.OnMessage(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativewindow.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Nativewindow.DebuggableCallback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)
   at System.Windows.Forms.SafeNativeMethods.ShowWindow(HandleRef hWnd, Int32 nCmdShow)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.SetVisibleCore(Boolean value)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Form.SetVisibleCore(Boolean value)
   at MicroFour.StrataFrame.UI.Windows.Forms.BaseForm.SetVisibleCore(Boolean value)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.set_Visible(Boolean value)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Application.ThreadContext.RunMessageLoopInner(Int32 reason, ApplicationContext context)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Application.ThreadContext.RunMessageLoop(Int32 reason, ApplicationContext context)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Form.ShowDialog(IWin32Window owner)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Form.ShowDialog()
   at MicroFour.StrataFrame.AddIns.PartialClassBuilderDialog.ᜃ()

Any suggestions about what I can do to fix this?

The suggestion: ----

Return the field list in the BO mapper to the same order as it was in 1.6.0, i.e. database schema order. For me anyway having the field list column in alphabetic sequence is confusing. Why not have it in schema order and let the user click the Name column to sort alphabetically if that's what they want.

Cheers, Peter