Forum Discussion
Event log warnings on schemas.
James Pike Sorry about the typo, yes I meant 2004.
The syntax being complained about is present by default on packages generated by the Microsoft MSIX Packaging Tool. I only called out one, but I think there were about three different refences generating warning events PER package.
The packages in question seem to be OK in spite of those warnings.
MicrosoftHi TIMOTHY_MANGAN ,
These warnings are a result of the max tested version the packaging tool is setting on generated packages. It was an oversight in the tool and we will correct it in the future.
In the meantime, if your package actually relies on any entries in the UAP10 or other namespaces you are seeing warnings for, you can manually correct the max tested version in the generated manifest.
Thanks!
James
James Pike Would the lower MaxTested value in those packages cause a difference in functionality when deploying to OS 2004? I recall it affecting a feature on 1903 previously.
- James Pike
Hi TIMOTHY_MANGAN,
The max tested version alters compatibility behavior of the application. The system will adjust platform behavior to mimic the version specified.
In this case, you may see that the namespaces that are newer than the max version tested may not have the full desired effect unless you update the max version tested field.
As long as your package isn't using any of the features in the new manifest namespaces, you most likely will observe no functional problems. Future versions of the packaging tool will take this into account and align the max tested version with the up to date toolchain/release.
Thanks!
JamesJames Pike Perhaps Microsoft should consider a change in enforcement.
If an application package contains valid information that would work with extended functionality offered in a new version, especially if it asked for that functionality and it was previously ignored, I think that the system should grant that new functionality in spite of any MaxTested field.
I previously ran into this with Modification Packages that wouldn't overlay the modified files properly unless we changed this MaxTested field. Once the OS had the ability to perform this layering, why should it ignore the modified files just because of this field? I think MSIX will be easier for everyone to understand if that field was just ignored by the runtime.