I have implemented a backup per workspace functionality in my extension using workspaceState. Since the data can be sensitive - I'd like to clear all workspaceStates on extension deactivation/uninstall.
The ExtensionContext provides no ability to clear all extension related data across different workspaces with their workspaceStates.
So I've considered saving data on the ExtensionContext globalState, tagging each entry with a workspace id. Problem is that the workspace namespace doesn't provide a way to uniquely identify the current workspace. I thought about hashing workspace name and path but both of these things are changeable and any change will destroy the pointer to the data. This is exactly why I cant just write files to internal folders. The only other solution I have is to write the backup data directly to the workspace and I'd like to avoid that.
How does VSCode maintain the knowledge of which workspaceState belongs to which workspace? How can I tie data to the workspace but have access from anywhere else in VSCode?
Side note: You should avoid saving sensitive data in general. And if necessary, try to encrypt it.
Anyway:
I don't have the full answers but i was researching something similar (An extension I use crashes due to now invalid settings in the WorkspaceState).
I found the Storage for the Workspace state in this folder (windows):
%appdata%\Code\User\workspaceStorage\
In there, you find a lot of folders with hex-based names. Inside those folders, I always found 2 Files named state.vscdb and state.vscdb.backup.
There usually is a 3rd file called workspace.json which helps you figure out if you are in the correct workspace. (but you'd have to iterate through all the folders - maybe there is a way to figure out the folder name coming from the extension API?)
If you open the state.vscdb-file you find something that looks quite like a serialized object set in my eyes. It does have some Seperator chars of unknown function. But you also find full paths or names in there that clearly origin from different modules of VSC - Including the extensions.
I don't need to worry about the other cached stuff i'm just gonna delete the whole folder to fix my current issue. But I'm pretty sure, one can figure out the way the file is built and edit out your sensitive data if one has to.
The state.vscdb.backup-file looks pretty much like what the name is telling you: they probably just make a copy of the other file every few minutes so you have a fallback position.
To add to the conversation, there are two SQLite state databases:
<user-data-dir>\User\globalStorage\state.vscdb
<user-data-dir>\User\workspaceStorage\<workspace.id>\state.vscdb
Depending on how VS Code was launched you could have a Single Folder Workspace or a Multi-Folder Workspace that is global or local. Globally, the data lives here:
Linux: $HOME/.config/Code/
OS X: $HOME/Library/Application Support/Code/
Windows: %APPDATA%\Code\
Locally, the data will be in the .vscode folder of the current workspace.
In my situation:
I open a new workspace.
Set it up as I want it to start every time.
Makes copies of the two SQLite databases.
Copy over the databases before launching VS Code.
This leads to a clean VS Code state.
To see how workspace.id is generated check this link.
I have some data (logins) I want to be ignored from git in my custom TYPO3 extension code.
As AdditionalConfiguration.php is already ignored in my case, it seems a good place to store such data.
It normally contains Data like
$GLOBALS['TYPO3_CONF_VARS']['DB']['Connections']['Default']['dbname']
Now would it make sense to make something like custom globals? Does that exist?
$GLOBALS['CUSTOM_CONF_VARS']['MYEXT']['username']
Should and can I do that or not?
I think you can use your own globals. But I would consider using your own globals as bad programming style.
If you have installation specific data the right way to store the data depends on the kind of data and where you need it:
everything for the Frondend should be stored in typoscript. This can be in a file from a site-extension or in the database (template record)
for BE you could use Page- or User-TSconfig. here you also can use a file from a site-extension or database records (pages/be_user)
if you have FE and BE or anything alse (e.g. scheduler jobs) you can use extension specific global data, you can set in the extension manager. -> docs.
Instead of saving configuration in $GLOBALS try use typoscript. Will be much easier to keep and maintain it.
Update: TL;DR there seems to be no built-in way to achieve this, so a custom task is an easy solution.
Capistrano provides facilities to share files and directories over all releases. This is convenient and provides even some safety on files that should not be easily changed (or must remain the same across releases), e.g. a database configuration file.
But when it comes to replace or just update one of these shared files, I end up doing it manually, directly on the target machine. I would like to improve on that, for instance by asking Capistrano to overwrite some or all shared files when deploying. A kind of --force flag with some granularity.
I am not aware of any such kind of facility, and failing so far in my search. Any pointer?
Thinking about it
One of the reason why this facility does not exist (except that I did not find it!) is that it may be harder than it looks. For example, let's assume we have a shared database configuration file, and we exclude it from version control for security reason (common practice). Current release relies on version 1 of the DB configuration. The next release requires version 2 of the DB configuration. If the deployment goes well, everything's good. It gets harder when rolling back after some error with the new release (e.g. a regression), as version 1 must then be available.
Such automation would be cool and convenient, but dangerous as well. Yet I have practical use cases at hand.
I created a template method to do this. For example, I could have a task like this:
task :create_database_yml do
on roles(:app, :db) do
within(shared_path) do
template "local/path/to/database.yml.erb",
"config/database.yml",
:mode => "600"
end
end
end
And then I have a database.yml.erb template that uses things like fetch(:database_password) to fill in appropriate values. You can use the ask method in Capistrano to prompt for these values so they are never committed.
The implementation of template can be very simple: you just need to read the file, pass it through ERB, and then use Capistrano's upload! to place the results on the server.
My version is a little more complicated than yours probably needs to be, but in case you are curious:
https://github.com/mattbrictson/capistrano-mb/blob/7600440ecd3331945d03e059368b75849857f1fb/lib/capistrano/mb/dsl.rb#L104
One approach is to use a system configuration tool like Chef or Puppet to deploy the configuration files distinctly from Capistrano.
Another approach is to create a custom task to do this: https://coderwall.com/p/wgs6gw/copy-local-files-to-remote-server-using-capistrano-3
I personally don't change on-server configs often enough or on enough servers yet to have tried to automate it. Crafting an scp command which copies the desired config file to all of the required servers has sufficed in the past.
What does this file hold and how important is it to keep it "correct"?
I've seen people write scripts to just merge any change dealing with it and I've heard others merging it manually every time.
What is the correct way to handle it and why?
The project.pbxproj contains all of the metadata about your project that Xcode uses to build it; the settings, the file references, configuration, targeted platforms, etc...
I.e. it is a critically important.
There really isn't a great answer for this. Typically, teams will avoid conflict by limiting edits to the project to one team member at a time.
The Xcode team has put a lot of effort into making the file merge-friendly. In managing several large projects via svn, I've generally found that the merges are automatic and painless.
Until they aren't. And when they aren't, revert, merge changes by hand (i.e. make the changes in the project that conflicted), and move on.
Try my script xUnique.
What it does:
convert project.pbxproj to JSON format
Iterate all objects in JSON and give every UUID an absolute path, and create a new UUID using MD5 hex digest of the path
All elements in this json object is actually connected as a tree
We give a path attribute to every node of the tree using its unique attribute; this path is the absolute path to the root node,
Apply MD5 hex digest to the path for the node
Replace all old UUIDs with the MD5 hex digest and also remove unused UUIDs that are not in the current node tree and UUIDs in wrong format
Sort the project file inlcuding children, files, PBXFileReference and PBXBuildFile list and remove all duplicated entries in these lists
see sort_pbxproj method in xUnique.py if you want to know the implementation;
It's ported from my modified sort-Xcode-project-file, with some differences in ordering PBXFileReference and PBXBuildFile
With different options, you can use xUnique with more flexibility
Problem
Your organization has many separate applications, some of which interact with each other (to form "systems"). You need to deploy these applications to separate environments to facilitate staged testing (for example, DEV, QA, UAT, PROD). A given application needs to be configured slightly differently in each environment (each environment has a separate database, for example). You want this re-configuration to be handled by some sort of automated mechanism so that your release managers don't have to manually configure each application every time it is deployed to a different environment.
Desired Features
I would like to design an organization-wide configuration solution with the following properties (ideally):
Supports "one click" deployments (only the environment needs to be specified, and no manual re-configuration during/after deployment should be necessary).
There should be a single "system of record" where a shared environment-dependent property is specified (such as a database connection string that is shared by many applications).
Supports re-configuration of deployed applications (in the event that an environment-specific property needs to change), ideally without requiring a re-deployment of the application.
Allows an application to be run on the same machine, but in different environments (run a PROD instance and a DEV instance simultaneously).
Possible Solutions
I see two basic directions in which a solution could go:
Make all applications "environment aware". You would pass the environment name (DEV, QA, etc) at the command line to the app, and then the app is "smart" enough to figure out the environment-specific configuration values at run-time. The app could fetch the values from flat files deployed along with the app, or from a central configuration service.
Applications are not "smart" as they are in #1, and simply fetch configuration by property name from config files deployed with the app. The values of these properties are injected into the config files at deploy-time by the install program/script. That install script takes the environment name and fetches all relevant configuration values from a central configuration service.
Question
How would/have you achieved a configuration solution that solves these problems and supports these desired features? Am I on target with the two possible solutions? Do you have a preference between those solutions? Also, please feel free to tell me that I'm thinking about the problem all wrong. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
We've all run into these kinds of things, particularly in large organizations. I think it's most important to manage your own expectations first, and also ask whether it's really necessary to tell every system and subsystem on a given box to "change to DEV mode" or "change to PROD mode". My personal recommendation is as follows:
Make individual boxes responsible for a different stage - i.e. "this is a DEV box", and "this is a PROD box".
Collect as much of the configuration that differs from box to box in one location, even if it requires soft links or scripts that collect the information to then print out.
A. This way, you can easily "dump this box's configuration" in two places and see what differs, for example after a new deployment.
B. You can also make configuration changes separate from software changes, at least to some degree, which is a good way to root out bugs that happen at release time.
Then have everything base its configuration on something/somewhere that is not baked-in or hard-coded - just make sure to collect and document it in that one location. It almost doesn't matter what the mechanism is, which is a good thing, because some systems just don't want to be forced to use some mechanisms or others.
Sorry if this is too general an answer - the question was very general. I've worked in several large software-based organizations before, and this seemed to be the best approach. Using a standalone server as "one unit of deployment" is the most realistic scenario (though sometimes its expensive), since applications affect each other, and no matter how careful you are, you destabilize a whole system when you move any given gear or cog.
The alternative gets very complex very quickly. You need to start rewriting the applications that you have control over in order to have them accept a "DEV" switch, and you end up adding layers of kludge to the ones you don't have control over. Usually, the ones you don't have control over at least base their properties on something defined on a system-wide level, unless they are "calling the mothership for instructions".
It's easier to redirect people to a remote location and have them "use DEV" vs "use PROD" than it is to "make this machine run like DEV" vs "make this machine run like PROD". And if you're mixing things up, like having a DEV task run together on the same box as a PROD task, then that's not a realistic scenario anyways: I guarantee that eventually you will be granting illegal DEV-only access to somebody on PROD, and you'll have a DEV task wipe out a PROD database.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you'd like to discuss more specifics involved.
I personally prefer solution 2 (the app should know itself, by its configuration, what environment it is running in). With solution 1 (pass the environment name as a startup parameter) the danger of using the wrong environment specifier is much too high. Accessing the TEST database from PROD code and vice versa may cause mayhem, if the two installed code bases are not of the same version, as is often the case.
My current project uses solution 1, but I don't like that. A previous project I worked on used a variation of solution 2: The build process generated one setup file for every environment, making sure that they contained the same code base but appropriate configuration paramters. That worked like a charm, but I know it contradicts the paradigm that the "exact same build files must be deployed everywhere".
I think I have asked a related, self-answered, question, before I read this one : How to organize code so that we can move and update it without having to edit the location of the configuration file? . So, on that basis, I provide an answer here. I don't like the idea of "smart" application (solution 1 here) for such a simple task as finding environment settings. It seems a complicated framework for something that should be simple. The idea of an install script (solution 2 here) is powerful, but it is useful to allow the user to change the content of the config file, but would it allow to change the location of this config file? What is this "central configuration service", where is it located? My answer is that I would go with option 2, if the goal is to set the content of the configuration file, but I feel that the issue of the location of this configuration file remains unanswered here.
If you're using JSON to store/transmit configuration (or can use JSON in your pre-deploy process to output to some other format) you can annotate key/property names for environment/context-specific values with arbitrary or environment-specific suffixes, and then dynamically prefer/discriminate them at build/deploy/run/render -time, while leaving un-annotated properties alone.
We have used this to avoid duplicating entire configuration files (with the associated problems well known) AND to reduce repetition. The technique is also perfect for internationalization (i18n) -- even within the same file, if desired.
Example, snippet of pre-processed JSON config:
var config = {
'ver': '1.0',
'help': {
'BLURB': 'This pre-production environment is not supported. Contact Development Team with questions.',
'PHONE': '808-867-5309',
'EMAIL': 'coder.jen#lostnumber.com'
},
'help#www.productionwebsite.com': {
'BLURB': 'Please contact Customer Service Center',
'BLURB#fr': 'S\'il vous plaît communiquer avec notre Centre de service à la clientèle',
'BLURB#de': 'Bitte kontaktieren Sie unseren Kundendienst!!1!',
'PHONE': '1-800-CUS-TOMR',
'EMAIL': 'customer.service#productionwebsite.com'
},
}
... and post-processed (in this case, at render time) given dynamic, browser-environment-known location.hostname='www.productionwebsite.com' and navigator.language of 'de'):
prefer(config,['www.productionwebsite.com','de']); // prefer(obj,string|Array<string>)
JSON.stringify(config); // {
'ver': '1.0',
'help': {
'BLURB': 'Bitte kontaktieren Sie unseren Kundendienst!!1!',
'PHONE': '1-800-CUS-TOMR',
'EMAIL': 'customer.service#productionwebsite.com'
}
}
If a non-annotated ('base') property has no competing annotated property, it is left alone (presumably global across environments) otherwise its value is replaced by an annotated value, if the suffix matches one of the inputs to the preference/discrimination function. Annotated properties that do not match are dropped entirely.
You can mix and match this behaviour to annotate configuration to achieve distinctions of global, default, specific that are (assuming you're sensible) readable with zero/minimal duplication.
The single, recursive prefer() function (as we're calling it, lacking the need or desire to make an entire project/framework out of it) we've developed so far (see jsFiddle, with inline docs) goes a bit further than this simple example, and (explained in greater detail here) handles deeply-nested configuration objects, as well as preferential ordering and (if you need to stay flat) combination of suffixes.
The function relies on JS ability to reference object properties as strings, dynamically, and tolerate # and & delimiters in property names which are not valid in dot-notation syntax but consequently (help) prevent developers from breaking this technique by accidentally referring to pre-processed/annotated attributes in code (unless they, non-conventionally don't prefer to use dot-notation.)
We have yet to have this break anything for us, nor have we been schooled on any fundamental flaws of this technique, beyond irresponsible/unintended usage or investment/fondness for existing frameworks/techniques that pre-exist. We have also not profiled it for performance (we only tend to run this once per build/session, etc.) so in your own usage, YMMV.
Most configurations transmitted client-side of course would not want to contain sensitive pre-production values, so one could (should!) use the same function to generate a production-only version (with no annotations) in pre-deploy, while still enjoying a SINGLE configuration file upstream in your process.
Further, if you're doing this for i18n, you may not want the entire wad going over the wire, so could process it server-side (cached or live, etc.) or pre-process it in build/deploy by splitting into separate files, but STILL enjoying a single source of truth as early in your workflow as possible.
We have not explored implementing the same function in Java (or C#, PERL, etc.) assuming it's even possible (with some exotic reflection maybe?) but a build environment that includes NodeJS could farm that step out easily.
Well if it suits your needs and you have no problem of storing the connection strings in the source control repository, you could create files like:
appsettings.dev.json
appsettings.qa.json
appsettings.staging.json
And choose the right one in the deployment script and rename it to the actual appsettings.json, which is then read by your app.