Missing runtime prompt does not redirect to the actual runtime

[Symbai]

Please excuse me if this is only because .NET Core 3.1 is still in preview but

Issue

I've tried the new runtime missing prompt added on .NET Core 3.1 . A preview 3 compiled WPF app opens this URL:

https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download?missing_runtime=true&arch=x64&rid=win10-x64&apphost_version=3.1.0-preview3.19553.2

but instead of landing on the download page with just a single button as I as a developer would expect my end users to land, I visually land on the default download page: https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download

This is a problem for multiple reasons:

1. It shows 3.0 for download but the user needs 3.1. Fixed when 3.1 releases but what if 3.2 or 5.0 releases then it wouldn't match again
2. It shows SDK and Runtime, an end user wouldn't know which to choose
3. Even if he hits runtime, he might downloads the x86 instead but he needs x64.

Expected:

What I would expect is that it the command prompt opens this URL instead: https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-core/3.1/runtime/desktop/x64 which points the end user to the only runtime he needs with a single download button, no chance for misunderstandings.

ping @dagood since you were involved in the original issue. Hope thats okay.

[dagood]

@rowanmiller @leecow can you take a look and confirm this is going to work for 3.1.0 GA?

For reference, the website and URL were discussed around here: dotnet/core-setup#8509 (comment).

/cc @elinor-fung @vitek-karas

[rowanmiller]

This is still being implemented. cc @richlander who is working on the logic to get folks to the right page.

[dagood]

Thanks for the update! Let me know if it's already tracked somewhere better, or we can default to considering this the tracking issue.

[Symbai]

@dagood @richlander @rowanmiller Tested on .NET Core 3.1 release version. There is NO prompt at all (windows 64bit WPF app), what has happened!?!? The prompt was there on 3.1 preview, on release its not.

Event viewer entry:

Description: A .NET Core application failed.
Application: WpfApp3.exe
Path: C:\Users\WDAGUtilityAccount\Desktop\WpfApp3.exe
Message: A fatal error occurred. The required library hostfxr.dll could not be found.
If this is a self-contained application, that library should exist in [C:\Users\WDAGUtilityAccount\Desktop\].
If this is a framework-dependent application, install the runtime in the global location [C:\Program Files\dotnet] or use the DOTNET_ROOT environment variable to specify the runtime location or register the runtime location in [HKLM\SOFTWARE\dotnet\Setup\InstalledVersions\x64\InstallLocation].

Test app:
TestApp.zip

[vitek-karas]

I just tried to create a new WinForms app with 3.1 and then ran it in an environment without runtime - it poped up a dialog asking me to download the runtime.

Your test app is compiled agaisnt 3.1.0-preview1.19506.1. I don't know if the fix made it to that preview... can you please try with an app built against 3.1?

Note that the fix is in the app.exe, so you have to clean/rebuild the app in order to get the new apphost - just installing 3.1 doesn't fix the issue.

[Symbai]

@vitek-karas Sorry, it was late when I discovered the blog post. This morning I noticed I had to update VS.

Now it shows up the messagebox but the issue reported in the first post seems to not be fixed. It still brings me to the default download page:

[vitek-karas]

The website is still being worked on: https://github.com/dotnet/core-setup/issues/8902#issuecomment-558372451

The important difference is that the URL now contains all the necessary information... and so now it's just to update the website to use that information (updating website is much easier than updating the product)

[Tyrrrz]

Some of my users are reporting that nothing happens after clicking on "Yes" in the popup.

Tyrrrz/LightBulb#122 (comment)
Tyrrrz/YoutubeDownloader#79

In both cases it seems that it happens when .NET Core 3.0 is already installed but the app requires 3.1.

[EatonZ]

@richlander Any word when the .NET site will be updated to correctly interpret the URL?

[richlander]

I implemented this in maybe February. Can folks re-check? It should be working now.

[NikolaMilosavljevic]

Closing in favor of #36765