Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • I couldn't do that. When I selected Outlook, "attach" couldn't be selected
    – Nanis
    Commented Feb 23, 2011 at 11:03
  • Is there already some debugger attached to outlook? I just had a quick look and could attach to any process on my system. Only time I know of that you can't attach is when the process already has a debugger attached. Have you checked the type of attachment? Default should be automatic, you can try setting it explicitly to managed. Commented Feb 23, 2011 at 11:08
  • Also if you are already attached to Outlook you have to make sure that the assembly used by Outlook is the exact same version you have in Visual Studio. VS won't break when the code base is different. Well, you can override this, but I forgot where exactly this option was. Anyway this usually won't help because different code bases make debugging nearly impossible most of the times. Commented Feb 23, 2011 at 11:15
  • In fact my problem is not to launch the debugger but that the debugger don't stop to the breakpoint. When I do "F5" outlook open with my add-in but never stop where i put break
    – Nanis
    Commented Feb 23, 2011 at 11:17
  • Ok, so you're already attached to outlook, that's good. Are you sure that line of code is executed? Maybe try some other line that is sure to be executed and see if that works. Also is the Breakpoint at runtime displayed normal or just lined out? If it's lined out it means either the assembly is not loaded yet or the CodeBase doesn't match. If the Breakpoint is outlined and your code is surely executed then have a look at the context menu for the breakpoint, I think there should be an option to ignore differing code bases. Commented Feb 23, 2011 at 11:19