Skip to content

Conversation

mokagio
Copy link
Contributor

@mokagio mokagio commented Jul 19, 2024

No description provided.

mokagio and others added 23 commits May 31, 2024 11:45
Also updates the call to comply with the new API.
* Don't pass a variable to require, it makes webpack mad

* remove get-config.js because only webpack can use fs

* update electron-updater due to security vulnerability

* keep target set as default

* add release notes assuming this is going to constitute a new 2.22.1 version
Otherwise, `package.json` would have been considered the source of the
configurations.
This is to avoid errors such as
https://buildkite.com/automattic/simplenote-electron/builds/148#0190c9fe-7dba-4f28-912d-c20b1ca2f011

However, I wonder why the `appx` is being built using
`electron-builder.json` when there's a dedicated config file for it that
should be used instead...
mokagio added 2 commits July 19, 2024 19:45
...The default configuration should build it already
From the docs at
https://www.electron.build/configuration/appx#appx-package-code-signing

> If the AppX package is meant for Windows Store distribution, no need
> to sign the package with any certificate. The Windows Store will take
> care of signing it with a Microsoft certificate during the submission
> process.
@mokagio
Copy link
Contributor Author

mokagio commented Jul 19, 2024

d3ff059 was based on what's written in the docs

If the AppX package is meant for Windows Store distribution, no need to sign the package with any certificate. The Windows Store will take care of signing it with a Microsoft certificate during the submission process.

I guess "no need to sign" might be different from "don't pass any parameter"?

image

mokagio added 3 commits July 22, 2024 10:22
See failure at
#3235 (comment)

I doubt this will result in a pass, but I'm curious to see how it will
change the validation failure.
See
https://buildkite.com/automattic/simplenote-electron/builds/156#0190d7d2-d094-40ca-97a4-e5ec076182bc

[2024-07-22T00:31:18Z]   ⨯ AppX Application.Id can’t start with numbers: "22490Automattic.Simplenote"
[2024-07-22T00:31:18Z] Please set appx.applicationId (or correct appx.identityName or name)
mokagio added 6 commits July 22, 2024 11:01
From the docs

applicationId String - The application id. Defaults to identityName. This string contains alpha-numeric fields separated by periods. Each field must begin with an ASCII alphabetic character.

https://www.electron.build/configuration/appx
electron-userland/electron-builder#2144 (comment)

With the previous version, we got

AppX Application.Id can’t start with numbers
@mokagio mokagio force-pushed the mokagio/windows-2.22.2-signing-experiments branch from 55ab919 to 0071b13 Compare July 23, 2024 04:21
@mokagio
Copy link
Contributor Author

mokagio commented Jul 23, 2024

With c824f57bfcfc907235e539c627aa05a63bf8147e we finally got back to an all green CI and a package that uploads fine to the Microsoft Partner Center:

image

However, my Windows VM showed all sorts of red flag when attempting to run the .exe, such as:

image

I'll keep iterating, but wanted to leave a record of this commit as the new green state.

@mokagio mokagio force-pushed the mokagio/windows-2.22.2-signing-experiments branch from ab50e01 to 295f5dd Compare July 24, 2024 04:34
mokagio added 10 commits July 24, 2024 14:49
This reverts commit eca23e4.

It made the build fail with the usual code sign related error:

Error information: "Error: SignerSign() failed." (-2147024885/0x8007000b)

https://buildkite.com/automattic/simplenote-electron/builds/171#0190e313-197a-43c2-95b7-0d708f061ba9
It should now be the same as how it was for 2.22.0, with the difference
that the `appx` settings are those coming from the redundant dedicated
`-appx.json` config file
The `appx` was built before the `exe`, but with the latest config
changes it failed to code sign.

https://buildkite.com/automattic/simplenote-electron/builds/173#0190e360-f70d-4ee9-8fd7-15d8cff032d4

At the same time, with the config before those changes, the `exe` was
not signed, or not signed properly. Regardless, Windows did not want to
open that file.

Removing `appx` to get to the `exe` build in CI and see if it signs okay
with these settings
But in an improved version where the default one does not attempt to
build the Appx as well.
@mokagio mokagio force-pushed the mokagio/windows-2.22.2-signing-experiments branch from 9ea9952 to a7647c0 Compare July 25, 2024 01:37
@mokagio mokagio closed this Jul 26, 2024
@mokagio mokagio deleted the mokagio/windows-2.22.2-signing-experiments branch July 26, 2024 05:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants