This website uses cookies. By clicking Accept, you consent to the use of cookies. Click Here to learn more about how we use cookies.
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- Revenera Community
- :
- InstallShield
- :
- InstallShield Forum
- :
- RTF in Scrollable Text - inconsistent.
Subscribe
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Feb 06, 2009
04:25 PM
RTF in Scrollable Text - inconsistent.
Basic MSI project.
I've added a scrollable text field to a new dialog that I cloned from InstallWelcome. So it's about 2/3 of the width that the "regular" text field would be on, say, LicenseAgreement dialog.
When I build on my personal computer with my local files, it looks great, works fine.
When it gets built on our nightly build system using the standalone builder, the text in the field does not initially show up. You can get it to appear by moving the scroll up and down (the side scroll does appear), or by highlighting where the text should be, at which point it appears.
I've double checked, and we're building using the same text file. It's an RTF, and thanks to Robert's suggestion on a thread from awhile ago, I did check that it's a proper RTF.
Has anyone seen this before or have any idea what might be causing the difference in behavior?
I've added a scrollable text field to a new dialog that I cloned from InstallWelcome. So it's about 2/3 of the width that the "regular" text field would be on, say, LicenseAgreement dialog.
When I build on my personal computer with my local files, it looks great, works fine.
When it gets built on our nightly build system using the standalone builder, the text in the field does not initially show up. You can get it to appear by moving the scroll up and down (the side scroll does appear), or by highlighting where the text should be, at which point it appears.
I've double checked, and we're building using the same text file. It's an RTF, and thanks to Robert's suggestion on a thread from awhile ago, I did check that it's a proper RTF.
Has anyone seen this before or have any idea what might be causing the difference in behavior?
(5) Replies
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Feb 06, 2009
06:21 PM
Since it's InstallWelcome, maybe see the help topic "Displaying Controls on Top of a Bitmap" or KB articles Q104915 and Q106604, whichever is handier...
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Feb 09, 2009
01:41 PM
Robert,
Thanks for your help. That definitely sounded like it could be my problem. Alas, it doesn't seem to be - or at least, those solutions didn't fix it.
On my dialog, the bitmap's tab stop is set to True, 0, and all other controls on the dialog are set to True as well, with numbers varying from 1-11, all inclusive.
Do you think it matters that this bitmap control is actually a .jpg?
Can you or anyone else think of something else that causes this same behavior? Thanks!
Thanks for your help. That definitely sounded like it could be my problem. Alas, it doesn't seem to be - or at least, those solutions didn't fix it.
On my dialog, the bitmap's tab stop is set to True, 0, and all other controls on the dialog are set to True as well, with numbers varying from 1-11, all inclusive.
Do you think it matters that this bitmap control is actually a .jpg?
Can you or anyone else think of something else that causes this same behavior? Thanks!
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Feb 10, 2009
09:29 AM
Does anyone have any tips at all, any thoughts? Even if you're not sure, I'm happy to try out your suggestions. I've got nothing on this one, myself...
It works okay when I build it on my machine, but does not paint correctly when it was built on our nightly build machine. Any known differences between the full product and the standalone builder on this front?
Maybe someone knows of a patch or fix for this that may not have been brought over the SAB?
It works okay when I build it on my machine, but does not paint correctly when it was built on our nightly build machine. Any known differences between the full product and the standalone builder on this front?
Maybe someone knows of a patch or fix for this that may not have been brought over the SAB?
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Feb 10, 2009
10:41 AM
Offhand I'm not sure what it could be, but could you perhaps run one of the MSI differencing tools to compare a build from your system with one from the other build system?
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Feb 10, 2009
03:08 PM
D'oh! Now why didn't I think of that?
Apparently in the control table, the entire text of the license agreement is included in the version that works, and not in the version that doesn't work.
I remembered a troubleshooting tip about making sure you have a real RTF and not a renamed one. The license.rtf in our version control is 170K, but only 47K on my local machine. If I take the one in VC and save it as an RTF, it goes back to 47 and works just fine.
So I think I can work around at this point - but here's the thing that's REALLY perplexing me. I've got about 27 installers on this branch, and the 170K license.rtf displays just fine in all of them except THIS one.
Any thoughts?
Robert, a thousand thanks for suggesting what I should have started by doing. 😄
Apparently in the control table, the entire text of the license agreement is included in the version that works, and not in the version that doesn't work.
I remembered a troubleshooting tip about making sure you have a real RTF and not a renamed one. The license.rtf in our version control is 170K, but only 47K on my local machine. If I take the one in VC and save it as an RTF, it goes back to 47 and works just fine.
So I think I can work around at this point - but here's the thing that's REALLY perplexing me. I've got about 27 installers on this branch, and the 170K license.rtf displays just fine in all of them except THIS one.
Any thoughts?
Robert, a thousand thanks for suggesting what I should have started by doing. 😄
