I want to support the usage of 'debugger' statements locally and on the development deployment but not when it gets to staging or production.
I'm using Ember-cli with environments and am not understanding how to define the jshint or eslint directives differently.
By design we can configure both linting libraries differently via their configuration files for app code & test code via .eslintrc or .jshintrc files which reside at the root folder and the tests folder. So even though we can have different rules for these categories of code, we can't differentiate them per environment.
The reason it might not make sense to do so is because the assets that get generated after the build process that gets deployed doesn't necessarily need to conform to these rules since transpilers like babel (may) optimize generated code for us.
While I don't understand the need to keep debugger statements after a debugging session in the codebase, you can use broccoli-strip-debug to remove them automatically in production builds and disable the debugger flag in the linting configuration altogether which gets you the setup you're looking for.
Question:
Is there a way to create a "development package" with SPM similar to a development pod in cocoa pods that will let me make changes to the actual source project of a dependency package (local path)?
Context:
I'm working on a project that needs to be split into three separate projects. One of these projects is shared by the other two (in this case a data model, shared by a server and a client). For the client, as it uses uikit, I have a development cocoa pod setup that lets me work within the client workspace, make edits to the data model project, and then immediately compile and run. My changes to the data model are then saved in the data model project.
However, for the server, as it is entirely built with SPM, if I want to make edits to the data model project (which I want to have reflected to the client), I currently have to make them in the data model project, then retag it with a new minor version number, clean the server project, and rebuild. I'd love to just set this up like I do with cocoa pods.
If I can't do that, is there at least a way to tell SPM to only update one of my dependencies to a new version number (or to the max version as specitifed within the Package.swift. i.e. minor version of .4, so if I retag from .401 to .402 it would update)? I would have thought I could do this in the Package.pins, but that doesn't seem to work. Not sure why it's not a hidden file if editing it doesn't effect actual changes.
The concept you call "development package" is called Editable Package in Swift Package Manager:
For the packages which are in the editable state, swift build will always use the exact sources in this directory to build, regardless of its state, git repository status, tags, or the tag desired by dependency resolution. In other words, this will just build against the sources that are present.
Background
In a Webpack configuration, you can specify the naming convention for emitted files as in [name]-[hash].js. I use this in combination with the html-webpack-plugin to generate .html.erb partials for use in a Rails app to include correct assets on deployment. Every Webpack build produces a unique fingerprint in filenames, which works great ... except for when you scale your app to multiple servers, where Webpack is part of the build process (a fresh new build for each server). Rails does a similar fingerprinting of precompiled assets.
github.css
** becomes **
github-448c90f2e2f181cd43b943786ee6f.css
Problem
Because the app is scaled to multiple servers behind a load balancer (using Elastic Beanstalk), the builds must be exactly the same on each deploy. As Webpack generates a unique hash per build, we get 404s on page loads, as the generated assets are not in sync.
Question
Has anyone figured out how to get the same hash across multiple builds? Possibly based on the git commit hash? That's what I'm thinking, but lots of searching has yielded no results. Not above building it myself.
I had the same problem as Kyle: Using Elastic Beanstalk with multiple servers, each server using Webpack generates a different hash.
First, I tried using [contenthash]. I thought this would work because, unlike [hash], it is based on the content of a file. It didn't work. My suspicion is that each server is using a different salt.
I think you could resolve this by specifying the salt with output.hashSalt, however I have not tested this, as I have since eliminated the need to use a hash in the filename.
The hashes are deterministic and as long as the content of the included files is the same, the hash will be the same as well. This also includes dependencies, so it's important to have the exact same dependencies.
Yarn uses a yarn.lock file to guarantee that the dependencies installed are identical on every install, this makes it very simple to have the exact same build every time on every machine. With npm you can use npm shrinkwrap to lock down the versions of the dependencies, but this is usually quite tedious to manage (one of the reasons Yarn was created and why it uses a lockfile).
You might also want to read Guides - Caching of the offical docs.
I know there are posts that ask how one stores third-party libraries into source control (such as this and this). While those are great answers, I still can't find the answer to this:
How do you store third-party middleware/frameworks binaries that need to alter your compiler / IDE for the library to work properly? Note: for my needs, I don't need to store the middleware source, I only store header files / lib / JAR ..so that it's ready to be linked.
Typically, you simply link libraries to your app, and you are good. But what about middleware / frameworks that need more?
Specific examples:
Qt moc pre-processor.
ZeroC Ice Slice (ice) compiler (similar to CORBA IDL preprocessor).
Basically these frameworks/middleware need to generate their own code before your application can link to it.
From the point of view of the developer, ideally he wants to just checkout, and everything should be ready to go. But then my IDE/compiler will not be setup properly yet, so the compilation will fail..
What do you think?
Backup everything including the setup of the IDE, operating system, etc. This is what i do
1) Store all 3rd party libraries in source control. I have a branch for all the libraries.
2) Backup the entire tool chain which was used to build. This includes every tool. Each tool is installed into the same directory on each developers computer, so this makes it simple to setup a developers machine remotely.
3) This is the most hardcore, but prepare 1 perfect developer IDE setup which is clean, then make a VMWare / VirtualPC image out of it. This will be useful when you cant seem to get the installers to work in future.
I learned this lesson the painful way because I often have to wade through visual studio 6 code which don't build properly.
I think that a better solution is to make sure that the build is self-contained and downloads all necessary software for itself unless you tell it otherwise. This is the way maven works, and it is really handy. The downside is that it sometimes needs to download a application server or similar, which is highly unpractical, but at least the build succeeds and it becomes the new developers responsibility to improve the build if needed.
This does of course not work great if your software needs attended installs, but I would try to avoid any such dependencies in any case. You can add alternative routes (e.g the ant script compiles the code if eclipse hasn't done it yet). If this is not feasible, an alternative option is to fail with a clear indication of what went wrong (e.g 'CORBA_COMPILER_HOME' not set, please set and try again').
All that said, the most complete solution is of course to ship everything with your app (i.e OS, IDE, the works), but I doubt that that is applicable in the general case, how would you feel about that type of requirements to build a software product? It also limits people who want to adapt your software to new platforms.
What about adding 1 step.
A nant script which is started with a bat file. The developer would only have to execute one .bat file, the bat file could start nant, and the Nant script could be made to do anything you need.
This is actually a pretty subtle question. You're talking about how to manage features of the environment which are necessary in order to allow your build to proceed. In this case it's the top level of your code toolchain, but the problem can be generalised to include the entire toolchain, and even key aspects of the operating system.
In my place of work, we have various requirements of the underlying operating system before our code will successfully run. This includes machine-specific configurations as well as ensuring correct versions of system libraries and language runtimes are present. We've dealt with this by maintaining a standard generic build machine image which contains the toolchain requirements we need. We can push this out to a virgin machine and get a basic environment that contains the complete toolchain and any auxiliary programs.
We then use fsvs to version control any additional configuration, which can be layered on to specific groups of machines as needed.
Finally, we use custom scripts hooked in to our CI server (we use Hudson) to perform any pre-processing steps required for specific projects.
The main advantages for us of this approach is:
We can build and deploy developer and production machines very easily (and have IT handle this side of the problem).
We can easily replace failed machines.
We have a known environment for testing (we install everything to a simulated 'production server' before going live).
We (the software team) version control critical configuration details and any explicit pre-processing steps.
I would outsource the task of building the midleware to a specialized build server and only include the binary output as regular 3rd party dependencies under source control.
If this strategy can be successfully applied depends on whether all developers need to be able to change midleware code and recompile it frequently. But this issue could also be solved via a Continous Integration Server like Teamcity that allows to create private builds.
Your build process would look like the following:
Middleware repo containing middleware code
Build server, building middleware
Push middleware build output to project repository as 3rd party references
Update: This doesn't really answer how to modify the IDE. It's just a sort-of Maven replacement thingy for C++/Python/Java. You shouldn't need to modify the IDE to build stuff, if so, you need a different IDE or a system that generates/modifies IDE files for you. (See CMake for a cross-platform c/c++ project file generator.)
I've written a system (first in Ant/Beanshell at two different places, then rewrote it in Python at my current job) where third-partys are compiled separately (by someone), stored and shared via HTTP.
Somewhat hurried description follows:
Upon start, the build system looks through all modules in repo, executes each module's setup target, which downloads the specific version of a third-party lib or app that the current code revision uses. These are then unzipped, PATH/INCLUDE etc are added to (or, for small libs, copy them to a single directory for the current repo) and then launches Visual Studio with /useenv.
Each module's file check for stuff that it needs, and if it needs installing and licensing, such as Visual Studio, Matlab or Maya, that must be on the local computer. If that's not there, the cmd-file will fail with a nice error message. This way, you can also check that the correct version is in there
So there are a number of directories on the local disk involved. %work% needs to be set using an global environment variable, preferrable on a different disk than system or source-checkout, at least if doing heavy C++.
%work% <- local store for all temp files, unzip, and for each working copy's temp files
%work%/_cache <- downloaded zips (2 gb)
%work%/_local <- local zips (for development or retrieved in other manners while travvelling)
%work%/_unzip <- unzips of files in _cache (10 gb)
%work%&_content <- textures/3d models and other big files (syncronized manually, this is 5 gb today, not suitable for VC either)
%work%/D_trunk/ <- store for working copy checked out to d:/trunk
%work%/E_branches/v2 <- store for working copy checked out to e:/branches/v2
So, if trunk uses Boost 1.37 and branches/v2 uses 1.39, both boost-1.39 and boost-1.37 reside in /_cache/ (as zips) and /_unzip/ (as raw files).
When starting visual studio using bat files from d:/trunk/BuildSystem/Visual Studio.cmd, INCLUDE points to /_unzip/boost-1.37, while if runnig e:/branches/v2/BuildSystem/Visual Studio.cmd, INCLUDE points to /_unzip/boost-1.39.
In the repo, only a small set of bootstrap binaries need to be stored (i.e. wget and 7z).
We currently download about 2 gb of packed data, which is unzipped to 10 gb (pdb files are huge!), so keeping this out of source control is essential. Having this system allows us to keep the repo size small enough to use DVCS such as Mercurial (or Git) instead of SVN, which is very nice. (I'm thinking of using Mercurials bigfiles extension or file sharing instead of a separately http-served directory.)
It work flawlessly. Developers need only to check out, set an enviroment variable for their local cache, then run Visual Studio via a specific batch-file in the repo. No unzipping or compiling or stuff. A new developer can set up his computer in no time. (Installing Visual Studio takes the order of a magnitude more time.)
First time on a new computer takes some time, but then it's fast, only a few seconds. Downloads/unzips are shared on the local computer, do checking out additional branches/versions does not occupy more space. Working offline is also possible, you just need to get the zip files manually if new ones have been uploaded. (This mechanism is essential to test new versions/compilations of third-party libraries.)
The basics are in a repo on bitbucket but it needs more work before it's ready for the public. Apart from doc and polish, I plan to:
extend it to use cmake instead of raw
vcproj-files, to make it more
cross-platform.
script the entire
process from checkout/download of
third-party packages to building and
zipping them (including storing the
download in a local repo) ... currently that's on my dev computer. Not good. Will fix. :)
As for moc, we use Qt's Visual Studio add-in, which stores this in the .vcproj files. Works well. I do think that CMake is one of the best answers for this though
I have taken the org.eclipse.equinox.p2.examples.rcp.prestartupdate project and adapted it for use in my RCP application. I then setup an update repository that gets updated as part of my nightly build.
When I open my application it goes through the motions like it is updating - it finds the update site, generates an uninstall and install operand for each bundle correctly and says that it finished with no errors. The problem is that the plugins never actually get installed in the plugins folder even though the profile gets updated (a subsequent run states there are no updates). Next time my build runs it correctly identifies there are updates, but the same thing happens again.
I have spent days debugging and the only thing that looks out of the ordinary (not that I fully understand what is going on) is that during the final configure phase none of the TouchpointData objects have any instructions so it doesn't look like configure is doing what it should.
I really have no clue where to look next and would like to see if anyone else has any ideas.
Update:
I finally figured out what was going on.
The problem started when I built my product without the generating the metadata repository. When building through Eclipse I didn't check the "Generate metadata repository" in the export product wizards because I didn't need a p2 repository, just the product. The problem is that without checking that button the product does not install as P2 enabled causing side effects such as not generating a profile among other things.
I tried to compensate for this by manually creating a profile in code which I have since found out is a really bad idea. My original problems were created because my profile wasn't set up correctly.
Once I started exporting the product with "Generate metadata repository" checked the update started correctly installing the new plugins.
The problem I have now is that although the plugins are being installed correctly, the executable is getting trashed and I cannot launch my application any more. I am building my update site through Hudson and the binary folder which is present when I use the Eclipse Export Product wizard is missing. I am assuming that is what is going wrong now.
Any ideas why the binaries would not be building in my headless PDE build?
Figured this out also. I had assumed that all I needed was the individual launcher plugins for the platforms I wanted to build on. Since I was trying to understand the process I was copying over plugins one by one to the build server. It turns out to include the platform specific binaries in the build you need to have the org.eclipse.equinox.executable feature from the delta pack. Once I added that to the build the binaries started showing up in the output. With the binaries the update mechanism works exactly as intended.
I had assumed that all I needed was the individual launcher plugins for the platforms I wanted to build on. Since I was trying to understand the process I was copying over plugins one by one to the build server. It turns out to include the platform specific binaries in the build you need to have the org.eclipse.equinox.executable feature from the delta pack. Once I added that to the build the binaries started showing up in the output. With the binaries the update mechanism works exactly as intended.