Bug in new feature 'Dynamic Update for Windows Setup (Sources) integration and update list support'

[SM03]

In the latest NTL version 2.0.0.7797, a new feature 'Dynamic Update for Windows Setup (Sources) integration and update list support' added.

And while making a new 21H1 ISO today on that latest NTL version 2.0.0.779, I found that
1. no updates showing for 21H1 under Update/Add/latest Online Update for Win10 21H1 x64 as well as x86



2. When I try to add the latest DU KB5000751.cab file for 21H1 manually via the update/add package file option, although my file , if that particular word 'x64' is not there mentioned anywhere in this filename, then no matter what, even after being the architecture file (i.e. x64), NTL through this error



Just add the 'x64' at that file, & it will be accepted.

This is the full process in GIF (click to watch in maximise mode)



So reporting here to the dev nuhi & sharing with other members to check with their experience.

Also, a suggestion, in Ntlite, under configure/feature, like all those features that are enabled by default, are coloured as GREE, if there also be a colour coded option for those features that being modified (i.e. either being enabled or disabled) from user end, something like in BLUE or RED, then it'd be nice to easily watch over those while cross-checking something from our (user) end while modding the ISO.

 

[nuhi]

Hi SM03,

1. That's normal, if you know of any 21H1 updates, do let me know.
Don't mix them with 2004/9 updates to get to 21H1 -- which is I believe starting with 19043.844
Maybe .NET CU from 2004 is relevant? Needs to be checked by running WU on 19043.844.

2. Will check, wasn't supposed to be like that unless 1607 DU, that was a fallback method, thanks.
Reporting tomorrow.

3. Hm, interesting, yes, usually the changed items are bolded in Settings. Will see to propagate it to Features maybe, in Components would look bloated and ugly.
What do you think?

 

[SM03]

Hi SM03,

1. That's normal, if you know of any 21H1 updates, do let me know.
Don't mix them with 2004/9 updates to get to 21H1 -- which is I believe starting with 19043.844
Maybe .NET CU from 2004 is relevant? Needs to be checked by running WU on 19043.844.

2. Will check, wasn't supposed to be like that unless 1607 DU, that was a fallback method, thanks.
Reporting tomorrow.

3. Hm, interesting, yes, usually the changed items are bolded in Settings. Will see to propagate it to Features maybe, in Components would look bloated and ugly.
What do you think?

Hi nuhi

1. I know what's 21H1 & not mixing up, my current host is 19043.844 21h1 & here's the SS of preparing a new 21H1 ISO via NTL.


These are the precise-updates for 21H!

-2021-02 21H2 EP KB5000736 [10.0.1.2] (21H1 specific)
-2021-02 SSU KB5000911 [19041.841.1.0] (")
-2021-02 CU KB4601382 [19041.844.1.7] (not 21H1 specific, can be used in all three 2xHx branch builds)
-2021-02 DU KB5000751 x64 [10.0.19041.844] (not sure but think 21H1 specific)

2. will wait for your findings

3. I don't think it'll look ugly as you already used the green colour for those features which are enabled by default, now if you use any colour like red or blue, it'll be easily visible for the user while watching at that screen or while checking
i.e. while scrolling on that page, that consist a sizable number of features, in that case, with the help of colour-coded options, users would easily understand (even without properly & separately reading every individual line) that what are the options that are

- A. enabled by default= green
- B. selected by them = RED/BLUE

And I mentioned these two colour specifically because IMO those will be appropriate or say a better choice for the ease of visibility in both white & dark theme, needless to say, the final decision of choosing the colour will be yours as being the DEV.

And IMO, this colour coded schematic should be implemented in all over the NTL, not just in any specific section i.e. under components or under configure/feature. To give you a better perspective, it will evidently help the user to easily navigate & understand that
- A. what options are enabled by default
&
- B. what're the optioned that's been modded (enabled/disabled) from the user end.

P.S: If I recall correctly, back in Q4-19 or Q1-2020, I proposed this kinda feature suggestion to you earlier, in our PM discussion .

 

[nuhi]

1. Those updates are not yet on the public Microsoft servers, only on UUP, in other words pre-release/unofficial and those are not going to our update list.
Some of those listed are for 2004 to become 21H1. Will be added there once it's publicly/directly available.

2. Nice catch, fixed, sending you pre-release build, won't rush the release as normally people won't rename it.

3. Will have to read this in more detail and respond if there is anything to comment, otherwise consider it nice to have, hopefully one day.

 

[SM03]

1. Those updates are not yet on the public Microsoft servers, only on UUP, in other words pre-release/unofficial and those are not going to our update list.
Some of those listed are for 2004 to become 21H1. Will be added there once it's publicly/directly available.

2. Nice catch, fixed, sending you pre-release build, won't rush the release as normally people won't rename it.

3. Will have to read this in more detail and respond if there is anything to comment, otherwise consider it nice to have, hopefully one day.

nuhi

1. yes, 21H1 is currently in beta/insider state, not for GDR/GA/Retail/public ring & release & only available for the 'seeker'

2. Got your pre-release build, will test & revert.

3. Although I don't think it's any complex matter to understand what I wrote here & suggested/proposed here, still, as you said, I'll wait for your response anyway

 

[SM03]

nuhi

1. yes, 21H1 is currently in beta/insider state, not for GDR/GA/Retail/public ring & release & only available for the 'seeker'

2. Got your pre-release build, will test & revert.

3. Although I don't think it's any complex matter to understand what I wrote here & suggested/proposed here, still, as you said, I'll wait for your response anyway

nuhi , this is to let you know that

As I said, for point no 2, that I will revert after testing, so replying.

Today I tested the new Pre-release build & it seems the issue is not present in that pre-release build