Should I bundle the source code, build script and deployment script together? In my previous company, they are always bundled together, but there is always a problem that when the company add a new server, they need to change the deployment script and create a new build version, however, there is no change to the source code. I would like to see what is your company practice on the source control, build and deployment.
The best practices for deployment are to have some standard system for that purpose. Usually that system will have a standard way to enumerate what hosts are available and what versions of software are on each host, so any scripts necessary for deployment become agnostic to the machines in use.
Similarly, in many environments, deployment uses a set of standard techniques. For example, it is common to use CI to run tests and then build one or more deployment artifacts, such as a tarball or container, and then all deploys using the same technique use the same deployment method (e.g. unpack the tarball into a directory named after the repository name), so in that case a deployment script may not even be necessary. If you use a standard method and one is necessary, then obviously you should include it in your artifact (which means it's included in the source code) or in the configuration for the deployment system (which should be maintained as repository as well).
As to whether one should include source code depends on whether it's needed. If you're deploying a project in a language like Python or Ruby, then obviously it will be needed. However, if you're deploying a project in a compiled language like Go or Rust, then it probably is not, and your build artifacts will be smaller and easier to work with if you don't include it and just build a binary artifact during CI.
Good day,
I have an application that I developed that transfers files between two machines ("site" and "server"). This application was set to target dotNet 3.5. Furthermore, I am using Renci.SshNet to handle the connections between the machines and the transferring of said files.
The issue that I am facing currently though is that about 70% of the "site" machines do not have a standard dotNet and is also quite old; thus these machines do not support all the required functionality as the external dll makes calls to System.Threading.WaitHandle.WaitOne() and System.Threading.WaitHandle.WaitAny(WaitHandle[], Int32) and other overloads of these methods.
The workaround that I have for this though is to install netfx20SP2 or netfx30SP1, yet I am not in the position to perform this update on all machines as they are scattered across the country and have data limitations (bandwidth and cap).
What I want to do possibly is to embed the System.Threading dll that I have downloaded and then the application should use those classes instead, or alternatively just point the application to use the said dll.
Is this at all possible, or do you have to load the dll into the GAC? And also, will it be possible to "run" this higher version of System.Threading in the application while the system itself is on a lower framework version. Something is telling me that the best bet will be to actually run the service pack installation to avoid unnecessary coding but I'm not sure exactly how to approach this.
Thank you in advance for any assistance / suggestions,
JD
To allow the execution of an application that, let's say, targets .Net 4; while the machine itself only has let's say, .Net 3.5, installed, one can redirect Windows to check the local (executing) directory for dlls that should contain the required symbols loaded into memory instead of the default symbols that get loaded upon execution (the default would be the NetFx installed on the machine - which I believe the highest version of the framework that can be found upon loading when the execution starts or would be the highest available version that is lower or equal to the targeted framework).
This file's contents (myApp.exe.local) are ignored. It is just there to tell Windows to
look in that folder for the applicable symbols and if not found, the system will roll back to attempt to load these symbols from the NetFx directory.
Read more at Microsoft Dev Center - Docs (link is attached to the following paragraph which is a Copy-Paste of a section of this document).
To use DLL redirection, create a redirection file for your application. The redirection file must be named as follows: App_name.local. For example, if the application name is Editor.exe, the redirection file should be named Editor.exe.local. You must install the .local file in the application directory. You must also install the DLLs in the application directory.
All,
A quick if you will related to the location of commands. We have two hosts, the first which will issue commands, the second which will receive those commands.
The hosts exists in different eco systems/bounded contexts, and therefore I'm trying to determine the best location for the commands.
Do you think that the commands project should reside with the send (in the sender sln), or with the receiver.
They could be kept entirely independent and be in a separate solution, but that doesn't solve the location issue as they're hosted in an internal nuget instance.
Thoughts?
With either commands or events we tend to place those outside of the consuming projects in a common area and build them separately after initial development. We have the build generate the nuget packages and then reference those from the consuming projects. Enabling package restore ensures the consumer's builds work correctly.
As Adam stated, Messages (Commands and Events) are contracts and should be located in a common project, the two consuming project have a dependency on the messages the sen/publish and handle. you can put the messages in separate projects (and/or namespaces) based on the service that owns them.
Fabric has become my deployment tool of choice both for deploying Django projects and for initially configuring Ubuntu slices. However, my current workflow with Fabric isn't very DRY, as I find myself:
copying the fabfile.py from one Django project to another and
modifying the fabfile.py as needed for each project (e.g., changing the webserver_restart task from Apache to Nginx, configuring the host and SSH port, etc.).
One advantage of this workflow is that the fabfile.py becomes part of my Git repository, so between the fabfile.py and the pip requirements.txt, I have a recreateable virtualenv and deployment process. I want to keep this advantage, while becoming more DRY. It seems that I could improve my workflow by:
being able to pip install the common tasks defined in the fabfile.py and
having a fab_config file containing the host configuration information for each project and overriding any tasks as needed
Any recommendations on how to increase the DRYness of my Fabric workflow?
I've done some work in this direction with class-based "server definitions" that include connection info and can override methods to do specific tasks in a different way. Then my stock fabfile.py (which never changes) just calls the right method on the server definition object.
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