Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I think we can introduce two modes: client mode and server mode.
In client mode CrashRpt would work as usual and request user consent.
In server mode it would create report silently. Since the developer has access
to the
server, there is no need to send any reports. Maybe it should send a
notification but
not a complete report. Am I correct?
Original comment by zexspect...@gmail.com
on 23 Nov 2009 at 4:21
In server mode there would still need to be a complete report. The developer
would
not necessarily have access to the server. In my case, the server runs at the
client
location on a workstation that few people see. In order to properly diagnose the
crash and cause I will need the complete report.
Original comment by crcod...@gmail.com
on 23 Nov 2009 at 10:22
If so, then user still has to provide his consent (maybe not in form of button
click). We can't just silently send personal info, even if your clients use
server
processes. I'm afraid antiviruses may block your software if it will silently
send
personal data.
Original comment by zexspect...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2009 at 6:21
I desperately need a server mode so that no email is sent and instead the crash
report
zip file is silently created. Older versions of CrashRpt has a 'NoUI' flag
that would
achieve this but I can't see how to do this in the latest release.
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2010 at 4:27
Where did you find the flag 'NoUI'? ;)
Original comment by zexspect...@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2010 at 5:32
When I first looked at this project a few years ago there was a SetNoUI
function
(something like that) that wouldn't send the email and would just write the zip
file.
I would like to see the following if possible:
1. The ability to tell CrashRpt not to send emails and just write the zip file
(by
leaving all the email flags set to zero or something.) SetNoUI reborn.
2. An option to specify which folder the crash reports are written too. The
current
local appdata folder is actually a pain to talk people through locating - I'd
like
these files to go into the same folder as my EXE (and it runs as a service so
write
permissions aren't a problem.)
Is this unreasonable? I'm happy to make the changes to the code myself to
allow for
this but I think others would fine these changes useful too.
Original comment by robert.c...@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2010 at 8:05
I can implement these features, I think they are nice to have. Please create new
issue per each enhancement request. This issue thread is about silent mode only.
Original comment by zexspect...@gmail.com
on 10 Mar 2010 at 5:06
This feature is implemented in v.1.2.2
Original comment by zexspect...@gmail.com
on 23 Mar 2010 at 5:34
Issue 85 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by zexspect...@gmail.com
on 23 May 2011 at 1:43
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
crcod...@gmail.com
on 21 Nov 2009 at 6:58