-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
electron builder fails to parse identityName of appx #2108
Comments
As mentioned here: https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/0f0aa264-7ae9-4ed3-b253-3660c35839d2/app-build-issue-concerning-packageidentityname?forum=wpdevelop
So it still not very clear how to overcome this... Is it bug in MakeAppx? I tried to replace electron-builder's
Updating electron-builder to the latest and greatest (19.30.1) didn't help and produced additional
|
@black-snow @develar sorry for pinging you guys. But looks like i won't be able to go trough this alone :) Kindly ask you to assist. Any ideas will be helpful. |
Looks like (despite the docs) Seems like an issue with makeappx - I think you should contact MS support (they've been pretty helpful). |
Thanks @black-snow. The Yep I tried to start the
|
@black-snow I just contacted Matteo Pagani from MS and he kindly responded me with the following information regarding this issue:
|
I started to think that no need to hate MS anymore but... God, save me. Well, at least MS support is very helpful. In any case I still think that AppX target (that cannot be used as default any time soon (5 years?), thanks to strange MS decision to not support it on Windows 7 and 8) will not became the same source of issues and nightmare of support as our current Windows target is. Ok... fix will be soon, it is very cool that MS helps us and all critical bugs are fixed in a short term. |
Kudos to Matteo, always great support. So there's two different fields that currently receive the same value but actually are different? Should be a quick fix then :) |
Wow commit is already here... Thanks @develar! That was fast! |
As respect to clear and detailed answer from MS. But because it is AppX and Windows is required to test, release will be only after approval from Windows CI server. |
Cool! Impatiently waiting... |
Please try 19.30.2 Set |
@develar with 19.30.2 SignTool Error occurs:
|
Please set env |
See below:
|
@develar I am using self-signed certificate - maybe this is the case? |
No clue. Why is your
Is cert added to local cert store as trusted? |
The CN is the one MS provided app with.
Regarding self-signed cert - I was able to build the appx earlier with it without issues. I just thought that added MS App Identity values to |
Bloooody Windows... Please check what is the |
CN differs for sure :) Cert was created before MS generated App Identity values for me..
|
So, or do not set |
And yes — I don't know for what MS requires this *** *** CN and why cannot simply compute from cert as electron-builder does. And of course signtool is a product from MS and so clear error reports will be not generated. |
Recreating cert with correct CN solved the issue. Last step left - verification by MS appx package build with electron-builder. Hope, it will go smoothly. Will update you guys soon.
|
I hate MS again :( I will add note that "Specify publisher ONLY if electron-builder cannot compute correct one". |
Hello everyone,
I hope it helps! |
@qmatteoq Wait... Do you want to say that electron-builder MUST not sign AppX by default or somehow else allows you to not sign it? And just produce unsigned AppX? |
I remember that read earlier on MS resources same info as Matteo mention above - that store takes care of signing the app with its cert. So was curious if the certificate was obligated. That's pretty cool that its not. Without certificate pre-generation, Electron builder will be one step closer to its super-simplicity! |
Guys, please confirm that and option/by default will be introduced/fixed. I guess we can simply do not require code signing of AppX. If it is true — god, I love MS! |
Guys, I can do not require code signing of AppX without confirmation that it is really true, but I ask you in this case contribute to our docs (https://www.electron.build/configuration/appx). e.g. "No need to sign AppX if it will be submitted to Windows Store". |
Hello @develar, Let me know if you have additional questions, I'll be happy to help :-) |
@qmatteoq Thanks for detailed information. No more questions, now I'm sure how to fix the documentation. Upcoming 19.33.0:
So, will be no way to help electron-builder and set |
@qmatteoq So, if I understand correctly, developer can send signed package with different |
@qmatteoq To make clear why I ask: I want to understand, should we introduce special |
19.33.0 released as latest stable. Please try. After question above will be cleared up, other changes will be maybe done. I consider our AppX target as amazing :) Thanks to Matteo Pagani. |
As I promised in #2027, just writing in that There were few errors and trials first, which were not related to So in the end everything went smoothly. Thanks again @black-snow @develar and @qmatteoq for your amazing support! -- |
Glad to hear that :) 👍 |
What about |
Hello,
Electron-builder (19.27.3) fails to parse
identityName
provided by Microsoft:My package.json electron-builder section looks like the following:
Generated by electron-builder Identity section in appxmanifest.xml looks ok for me:
Kindly help.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: