So I am using github pull requests for my code review needs and my only issue is that I cannot tell whether a person is using tabs or spaces for indentation. We have a standard here on this and you can fail code review for using the wrong one. Is there a way to tell which they are using with github or will I have to manually open up the file in my editor to tell the difference?
Is there a way to tell which they are using with github or will I have to manually open up the file in my editor to tell the difference?
Ideally – neither!
Whenever things can be checked in an automated way, let the computer do the work for you. Checking proper usage of whitespace among many other static rules can be checked with a variety of tools, often called linters. This highly depends on what language your project uses. Of course you can also write your own scrips if you so choose.
What you can do on Github is connect your repository to a CI tool such as Travis. This lets you automatically build all pull requests and check things such as whitespace rules. It also lets you run test suites, code formatting, … – anything you can automate, you can (and should!) run from there to minimize manual work.
I am working on a large project with a number of other developers.
We have implement JSHint which will throw an error when grunt build is run if the JavaScript does not pass the Lint.
I would like to know if it is possible to integrate directly with Github so that a Pull Request will not be allowed to be merged unless it passes in JSHint.
Is there a way or tool to do this?
You can't prevent pull requests from being merged; however, you can automatically run JSLint using Travis-CI, which will put a big red X on pull requests that do not pass JSLint. Hopefully this is enough to stop people from merging these pull requests.
This blog post gives a good introduction to running grunt tasks on Travis-CI.
There is a free way to do it too by lint-review
As #tbekolay said, it puts a red sign.
Also, you will see the problems as comments on the code wich is super cool.
But you can merge it manually.
I'm using Perforce version control system (http://www.perforce.com/) and would like to format source code files (mainly XML) when developers submit their files to Perforce. I know that Git and SVN allow script hooks that provide for that.
Is there a way to change files that are being submitted to Perforce using some kind of a hook?
How can I do that on Perforce?
Thanks!
When I've done these sorts of policy-enforcement tools in the past, I've done it post-commit.
That is, after the submit completes, my tool retrieves the newly-submitted files, re-formats them according to the policy that I'm enforcing, and submits the re-formatted files as a follow-on change.
I do this by writing a tool that monitors changes similarly to the way the change review daemon monitors changes, so that the tool notices new submits and reviews the new files to see if they comply to the organization policy.
I generally have the tool perform a "revert -a" prior to the submit, so that if the files were formatted according to policy by the original developer, no second submission occurs.
I actually think this is a better approach than trying to do it during the submit:
The change that is submitted is exactly as the user provided it, with the identical content as provided by the user
The modifications that are due to the tool are clearly visible in a separate submission, which makes it very easy to recognize when the tool has gone astray and damaged the file during its re-formatting (such tool bugs do occur).
The net effect, overall, is the desired one: the files at the head of the branch are formatted according to company policy.
A Perforce trigger is what you need.
My team recently switched to all three technologies in the past several months and have worked hard to get it up and running. Next step is automating our changelogs. We have JIRA set up look for the tags (ex. TAG-123) in github commit messages. Jenkins monitors the GitHub commits on a 5 minute timer, pulls, builds, etc.
What I would like to see is a changelog generated automatically when a build is marked as "Promoted to Production." I would like to see it do something akin to the following:
Query Jenkins for the previous build marked as a production release and get the corresponding git commit SHA1.
Run a diff in between the current Git commit and the previous commit
Find all JIRA tickets that are referenced
Compile a list of JIRA titles
Have list export to a text file and placed in build drop (bonus if it can be accessed directly through Jenkins as well)
Whether this flow is followed as written or not is irrelevant--I'm after the end result and am not looking to re-invent the wheel.. Surely somebody done something like this before?
As far as reinvention goes, I was able to find https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Promoted+Builds+Plugin which allows somebody to piggy-back on the Promote to Production action and run a separate script. It would then be a matter of gathering functionality to accomplish the above. (I also noticed Jenkins can tag the current GitHub commit, which my team would likely do in addition.)
Anything closer to accomplishing this would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
Since nobody on our team had excess time to devote to this, we ended up throwing together a quick solution.
The Process
Install and setup the All Changes plugin for Jenkins.
When we release, we use "build promotion" system which puts stars next to the previous build, so we can easily see the build# looking at the history.
Copy and paste the relevant output from All Changes into something like notepad++ (human-diff'ing ftw!)
Run a regex find/replace. Search on the regex string, replace with an empty string. (below -- there's the big-bang option or its broken up for understandability.)
Manually organize and release in whatever form is the current agreed up standard.
Everything at once
(\s*\(commit:\s[a-z0-9]{40}.\s..detail)|([\r][\n]#.*\B[\r][\n][\r][\n])|(^[ \t]*)
Remove commit hash\s*\(commit:\s[a-z0-9]{40}.\s..detail
Remove time and surrounding line breaks[\r][\n]#.*\B[\r][\n][\r][\n]
Removing leading whitespace: ^[ \t]*
The Analysis
Pros:
Effective overall
Relatively quick to implement
Cons:
Not fully automated.
Need to revert to commit id if you release from multiple Jenkins jobs.
All Changes history only appears to go back as far as the Jenkins job (I could be mistaken about the specifics of this--I just remember minor grievances with something like this at one point.)
As a whole, the cons are somewhat "the nature of the beast." I'd love to read some other solutions. (For when we have that elusive thing called Time, of course!)
Alternative to dependancy on issue trackers could be to purely use the pull requests themselves. For us they had enough context to generate release notes and we used labels for categorisation. I created PullRequestReleaseNotes and you can try it. It supports GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket and TFS and it can generate release notes in markdown from merged pull requests and its labels and optionally post it to an Atlassian Confluence page and post it to a Slack channel as a post. It can be run as part of continuous integration. Here is a sample:
1.2.1 (MASTER) - XX XXX 2016
Enhancements
Category A
Awesome new feature #1854
Fixes
Category Z
Fixed problem with widget #1792
Category Y
Fixed problem with widget #1792
Fixed exception with view layout #1848
I am starting to get a reputation at work as the "guy who breaks the builds".
The problem is not that I am writing dodgy code, but when it comes to checking my fixes back into source control, it all goes wrong.
I am regularly doing stupid things like :
forgetting to add new files
accidentally checking in code for a half fixed bug along with another bug fix
forgetting to save the files in VS before checking them in
I need to develop some habits / tools to stop this.
What do you regularly do to ensure the code you check in is correct and is what needs to go in?
Edit
I forgot to mention that things can get pretty chaotic in this place. I quite often have two or three things that Im working on in the same code base at any one time. When I check in I will only really want to check in one of those things.
A few suggestions:
try work on one issue at a time. It's easy to make unrelated changes to the codebase that then end up being committed as one big chunk with a poor log message. Git is excels here since you can so easily move switch branches, and stash and cherry pick changes.
run the status command before a commit to see which files you've touched and if you've created new files that need to be added to version control.
run the diff command to see what you've actually changed. Often times you find that you've left in some debug logging that should be taken out or made some unnecessary change that is just cluttering up the diff. Try to make your diffs as small and clean as possible.
make sure your working copy builds with your changes in it
update before checking in and make sure that your working copy builds with other peoples changes in it
run what ever smoke test suite you might have to make sure that your changes work correctly
make small and frequent commits. It's a lot easier to figure out what has broken the build when the breaking commit is small.
Other things that the team can do is setup a continuous integration server like David M suggested so that the broken build is discovered as soon as possibly and automatically.
I usually always do a Get Latest before, then build. If build is good then I check in my code.
Here is what I have been doing. I have used ClearCase and CVS in the past for source control, and most recently I have been using Subversion and Visual Studio 2008 as my IDE.
Make my code changes and build on the local machine.
Make sure they do, in fact, fix the bug in question.
Run an SVN update on the local machine and repeat steps 1 and 2.
Run through the automated unit tests to verify that they pass.
If an automated smoke test is available, which automatically tests a lot of the system's capabilities, run it. Verify that the results are correct.
Then go to the build machine and run the build script.
If the project's configuration has changed, this could definitely break a build. Perform an SVN update on the build machine, whether the build script does that or not. Open the build machine's copy of the IDE, and do a complete rebuild. This will show you whether the build box has any problems that you have taken care of on your machine but not on the build box.
The suggestions to keep separate branches for each issue are also very good, if you can keep track of all of the issues you are working on.
First, use multiple working copies (a.k.a sandboxes) - one per issue. So, if you've been working on some complex feature for a while, and you need to deal with a quick bug fix on the same project, check out a new clean working copy and do the bug fix there. With independent working copies for each issue there is no confusion about which changes to commit from the working copy to the reposistory.
Second, before committing changes, always perform the following three steps:
Buld the software.
Run a smoke test (does it start and run without crashing).
Inspect the changes you're checking in by diffing your changes against the baseline.
These should be repeated after any merge operations (e.g. after an SVN update).
At my workplace, the safety net for this is peer review. That is, get someone else to build, run, and reproduce your solution on their machine, on their view.
I cannot recommend this enough. It has caught so many omissions, would-be problems, and other accidental pieces of junk to make it a valuable part of the process. Not to mention that the mere knowledge that you have to place your work in front of someone else before having it go on to the main branch means that you raise your own quality standards.
In the past I have used branching in Clear Case to help with this issue. The process I used is below. I've never used SorceDepot so I do not know how this can be adapted to work with it.
Create a branch for the bug fix
Code all changes on the branch
Code Review
Merge to stable branch in a different view (the different view is important)
BEFORE checking in: compile, test, and run
Check in code to stable branch
By creating the branch and then merging the changes to a different view (I use Merge Manager to do the merge) any files that were not included or checked in immediately cause issues. This way everything gets tested as it will be when checked in on the stable branch.
The best thing to avoid your problems, is to use hooks, that are provided in most SCMs (they are for sure in SVN and Mercurial, and I believe they must be in other advanced SCMs). Attach unit tests to the hook and make it run every time someone checks code in - exactly before it is checked in. This way you will achieve two things:
code in SCM repo will always pass the tests,
you won't make most simple mistakes, because they should be easily detectable, if you have decent test suite.
I like having Tortoise plugins for Windows Explorer. The file icons are all badged with committed, modified or not added icons making it very easy to see what status the files are in. I also enable the meta data for Modified so I can sort changed files in the list (Details) view, where they bubble to the top so I can see them.
I bet there is a Tortoise* plugin for your SCM, I saw one for Mercurial and SVN (and CVS, ugh). I really wish Mac OS X's Finder would accept plugins like Tortoise, its so much easier than having to pop open a dedicated app most of the time.
Get someone else to go through "every" change "before" you check in the code.