Windows 10: We can’t add this account

A colleague recently started seeing an issue when attempting to add their work account to a Windows 10 device. Following a device re-image (this, as we’ll see becomes important…), a colleague saw the following error reported when attempting to add their work account:

Windows 10 we can't add this account

The full text of the error reads

We can’t add this account. Your organisation’s IT department has a policy that prevents us from adding this work or school account to Windows.

Initially we looked at whether recent policy changes had in fact impacted the ability to add a work account to a Windows 10 device, but were not seeing anything that appeared to impact this. We had other users who were receiving new PCs that were unaffected and had the same policies applied to them. In addition, nothing was showing up in the event viewer folder for Workplace Join on their machine when attempting to add the account.

Realising that the machine had just been reimaged, we checked in Azure AD to view the list of devices. The following is a screen shot for a different device ID, however this was similar to what we saw:

Device list in Azure AD

As can be seen, there are multiple instances of the ‘same’ machine. In each case, the machine has been reimaged and then had the work account added. In each case, Azure AD has obviously assigned a new device ID, hence what appears to be multiple copies of the same machine registered.

Once we’d deleted a few of the ‘old’ machines from the list, the user was able to successfully add their work account to the device.

There are a couple of potential solutions in our scenario:

  1. Periodically check the number of devices registered and trim as appropriate.
  2. Raise the limit of the number of devices that can be registered, either to a larger number, or to ‘unlimited’ in the device settings area of Azure AD.

Azure AD Device Settings

Getting Remote Desktop Manager 2.7 working sanely with mixed high DPI screens

Updated 3 July 2018 – A colleague, Andy Davidson,  suggested mRemoteNG as an alternative tool to this address this issue. mRemoteNG also has the advantage that it support most major remoting technologies not just RDP, so I am giving that a try for a while.

This is one of those post I do mostly for myself so I don’t forget how I did something, it is all based on answers on SuperUser.Com, I can claim no credit

I have a SurfaceBook (first generation) and when I am in the office it is linked to an external monitor, with a different lower DPI, via a dock. If I use Remote Desktop (MSTSC) as built into Windows 10, I can drag sessions between the two monitors and the DPI shift is handled OK. However, if I use my preferred tool Remote Desktop Manager 2.7 (as it allow me to store all my commonly used RDP settings) I am in DPI hell. I either get huge fonts or microscopic ones. This is bad whether working on the single high DPI laptop screen work with an external screen.

As the SuperUser.Com post states the answer is to change the compatibility settings for the manager by right clicking on the file “C:Program Files (x86)MicrosoftRemote Desktop Connection ManagerRDCMan.exe”, selecting compatibility, change high DPI settings, and unchecking high DPI setting override

image

Once this was done, I have readable resolutions on all screens.

Why did I not do a better search months ago?

A workaround for the error ‘TF14061: The workspace ws_1_18;Project Collection Build Service does not exist’ when mapping a TFVC workspace

Whilst writing some training material for VSTS I hit a problem creating a TFVC workspace. I was using VS2017, linking a TFVC Repo to a local folder. I was connecting to the VSTS instance using an MSA.

In Team Explorer, when I came to do a ‘Map & Get’ to map the source locations I got a ‘TF14061: The workspace ws_1_18;Project Collection Build Service does not exist’ error

image

Strange error, which I could see no obvious reason for. Turns out the work around was just to press the ‘Advanced’ link/button and accept the defaults

Still a few spaces left at the Yorkshire Global DevOps BootCamp Venue hosted at Black Marble

There are still a few spaces left at the Yorkshire Global DevOps BootCamp Venue hosted at Black Marble

Come and learn about all things cool in DevOps, including

  • Video keynote by Microsoft
  • Local keynote: Breaking down the Monolith
  • Hackathon/HandsOn DevOps challenges. The hands-on part with be based on a common application where we try to solve as many challenges as possible, including ideas like
    • How to containerize an existing application
    • How to add telemetry (app insights) to the application and gather hypothesis information
    • How to use telemetry to monitor availability
    • How to use feature toggles to move application into production without disrupting end users
    • How to use release gates
    • How to make DB schema changes
    • Use Blue Green Deployments

And there is free lunch too!

To register click here

Where do I put my testing effort?

In the past I have blog on the subject of using advanced unit test mocking tools to ‘mock the unmockable’. It is an interesting question to revisit; how important today are units tests where this form of complex mocking is required?

Of late I have certainly seen a bit of a move towards using more functional style tests; still using unit test frameworks, but relying on APIs as access points with real backend systems such as DBs and WebServices being deployed as test environments.

This practice is made far easier than in the past due to cloud services such as Azure and tools to treat creation of complex environments  as code such as Azure Resource Manager and Azure DevTest Labs. Both myself and my colleague RIk Hepworth have posted widely on  the provisioning of such systems.

However, this type of functional testing is still fairly slow, the environments have to be provisioned from scratch, or spun up from saved images, it all takes time. Hence, there is still the space for fast unit tests, and sometimes, usually due to limitations of legacy codebases that were not designed for testing, there is a need to still ‘mock the un-mockable’.

This is where tools like Typemock Isolator and Microsoft Fakes are still needed. 

It has to be said, both are premium products, you need the top Enterprise SKU of Visual Studio to get Fakes or a Typemock Isolator license for Isolator, but when you have a need them their functionality they are the only option. Whether this be to mock out a product like SharePoint for faster development cycles, or to provide a great base to write unit tests on for a legacy code base prior to refactoring.

As I have said before, for me Typemock Isolator easily has the edge over Microsoft Fakes, the syntax is so much easier to use. Hence, it is great to see the Typemock Isolator being have further extended with updated versions for C++ and now Linux.

So in answer to my own question, testing is a layered process. Where you put your investment is going to be down to your systems needs. It is true, I think we are going to all invest a bit more in functional testing on ‘cheap to build and run’ cloud test labs. But you can’t beat the speed of tools like Typemock for those particularly nasty legacy code bases where it is hard to create a copy of the environment in a modern test lab.

Making sure when you use VSTS build numbers to version Android Packages they can be uploaded to the Google Play Store

Background

I have a VSTS build extension that can apply a VSTS generated build number to Android APK packages. This takes a VSTS build number and generates, and applies, the Version Name (a string) and Version Code (an integer) to the APK file manifest.

The default parameters mean that the behaviour of this task is to assume (using a regular expression) the VSTS build number has at least three fields major.minor.patch e.g. 1.2.3, and uses the 1.2 as the Version Name and the 3 as the Version Code.

Now, it is important to note that the Version Code must be a integer between 1 and 2100000000 and for the Google Play Store it must be incrementing between versions.

So maybe these default parameter values for this task are not the best options?

The problem the way we use the task

When we use the Android Manifest Versioning task for our tuServ Android packages we use different parameter values, but we recently found these values still cause a problem.

Our VSTS build generates  build numbers with four parts $(Major).$(Minor).$(Year:yy)$(DayOfYear).$(rev:r)

  • $(Major) – set as a VSTS variable e.g. 1
  • $(Minor) – set as a VSTS variable e.g. 2
  • $(Year:yy)$(DayOfYear) – the day for the year e.g. 18101
  • $(rev:r) – the build count for the build definition for the day e.g. 1

So we end up with build numbers in the form 1.2.18101.1

The Android version task is set in the build to make

  • the Version Number {1}.{2}.{3}.{4}  – 1.2.18101.1
  • the Version Code {1}{2}{3}{4} – 12181011

The problem is if we do more than 9 builds in a day, which is likely due to our continuous integration process, and release one of the later builds to the Google Play store, then the next day any build with a lower revision than 9 cannot be released to the store as its Version Code is lower than the previously published one e.g.

  • day 1 the published build is 1.2.18101.11 so the Version Code is 121810111
  • day 2 the published build is 1.2.18102.1 so the Version Code is
    12181021

So the second Version Code is 10x smaller, hence the package cannot be published.

The Solution

The answer in the end was straightforward and found by one of our engineers Peter (@sarkimedes). It was to change the final block of the VSTS build number to $(rev:rrr), as detailed in the VSTS documentation. Thus zero padding the revision from .1 to .001. This allows up to 1000 builds per day before the problem of altering the Version Code order of magnitude problem occurs. Obviously, if you think you might do more than 1000 internal builds in a day you could zero pack as many digits as you want.

So using the new build version number

  • day 1 the published build is 1.2.18101.011 so the Version Code is
    1218101011
  • day 2 the published build is 1.2.18102.001 so the Version Code is
    1218102001

So a nice fix without any need to alter the Android Manifest Versioning task’s code. However, changing the default Version Code parameter to {1}{2}{3} is probably advisable.

    DDD Submission Issues

    Some people have reported issues submitting sessions for DDD. if you do have a problem, please tweet us a message and we will get in touch

    b.


    DDD is coming up fast: things you might want to know

    DDD is winging its way to Reading in June, We already have some great sessions submitted but it would be great to get even more. If you have something to say we would love to hear it.

    Also we are still looking for designer orientated sessions.

    If you are a new speaker let us know and we are trying to get some speaker mentoring and presentation training organised before the event to help you shine on the day.

    So if you are a new speaker and you are accepted we will contact you to see if you need any assistance.

    I look forward to seeing you all in June

    b.

    http://www.developerdeveloperdeveloper.com/



    Major new release of my VSTS Cross Platform Extension to build Release Notes

    Today I have released a major new release, V2, of my VSTS Cross Platform Extension to build release notes. This new version is all down to the efforts of Greg Pakes who has completely re-written the task to use newer VSTS APIs.

    A minor issue is that this re-write has introduced a couple of breaking changes, as detailed below and on the project wiki

    • oAuth script access has to be enabled on the agent running the task

    image

    • There are minor changes in the template format, but for the good, as it means both TFVC and GIT based releases now use a common template format. Samples can be found in the project repo

    Because of the breaking changes, we made the decision to release both V1 and V2 of the task in the same extension package, so not forcing anyone to update unless they wish to. A technique I have not tried before, but seems to work well in testing.

    Hope people still find the task of use and thanks again to Greg for all the work on the extension