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.
Related
I would like to create a test suite which will be run with karma against my app which is using webpack to build itself. I have two entrypoints, app and vendors. These are set up through my webpack.config.js file here. The resulting bundle.js should contain both of these entrypoints in its generated file.
My karma (mocha) tests residing in test/spec/*_spec.js are currently pointing to specific components, via require statements like:
var app = require('../src/scripts/App')
They also utilize react/jsx which seems to be causing problems during the test run where I get jsx errors:
Module parse failed: /Users/dmarr/src/status/test/spec/app_spec.js Line 10: Unexpected token <
You may need an appropriate loader to handle this file type.
I'd like to keep test runs quick as possible as well as fast build times for testing with webpack-dev-server during development by minimizing babel transforms to only where needed.
What do I need to do in karma.conf.js to get my builds working? Here is the karma.conf.js file I'm playing around with.
Note, that I do have this working without breaking out the vendor bundle here: https://github.com/bitwise/status
Thanks for any help,
Dave
In a similar setup, disabling CommonsChunkPlugin (for testing only) worked for me. Give it a shot!
We have a GWT Application that has to link another Application.
This link is different in all stages of my application (local, test, staging, prod). What options are there to configure a GWT app?
Currently we're using properties files for every environment. The problem with this solution is, that we have to create different packages for all the environments. That's bad and we want to build one single package that is deployable to all environments.
But how can we tell the application which configuration to use?
If you are lord of the rings fan -
One Build to rule them all, One Build to find then,
One Build to work on all and in the environment bind them
In the Land of Testing where the Shadows lie.
Solution at our workspace
All the environment specific properties file are pushed into template folder ( log4j_prod.properties,log4j_stage.properties, hibernate.properties etc )
Prod properties file are default and pushed to WEB-INF/classes
QA team modifies the property files using the template files for any other environment.
I too would be curious if it is done any other way :)
If you want to know weather the application is running in which mode , there are some static methods in GWT class .
isClient()
Returns true when running inside the normal GWT environment, either in Development Mode or Production Mode. Returns false if this code is running in a plain JVM. This might happen when running shared code on the server, or during the bootstrap sequence of a GWTTestCase test.
isProdMode()
Returns true when running in production mode. Returns false when running either in development mode, or when running in a plain JVM.
isScript()
Determines whether or not the running program is script or bytecode.
etc....
Based upon tha flags you can configure the folder name of the properties
I've just picked up CoffeeScript and I'm struggling to understand the deployment workflow. It seems you constantly have to compile the .coffee files before using them. (Yes, I'm aware that you can have it embedded in the browser, but that's not recommended for production applications).
Does one have to constantly (manually) compile the files before deploying? (For example, if using Eclipse, a simple Ctrl+S saves and deploys the .war/.ear on the local machine's server.) Do we have to change the build scripts (for a central, possible CI server) for deploying .coffee files? Is there anyway to have integrated compiling via the IDEs (Eclipse/Netbeans)
Any ideas/pointers/examples on this? How/what have you used in the past?
I call browserify in my Cakefile to pre-compile and package my CoffeeScript for the browser. For an example of how I call browserify as well as coffeedoc and coffeedoctest take a look at the Cakefile for my Lumenize project.
If you are using express or some other node based server, you can have your CoffeeScript compiled at request time, using tools like NibJS or as described in The Little Book on CoffeeScript (Applications chapter), you can use Stitch. BTW, I highly recommend, The Little Book. The "Compiling" chapter has information about Cake and compiling that might help you.
Yes, you should have a build script. Most CoffeeScript projects use a Cakefile for this; see, for example, 37signals' pow. With a Cakefile, you can just run
cake build
from the command line to run the build task in the Cakefile.
You can run the Cakefile on a CI server, assuming that you have Node and CoffeeScript installed on that server.
Don't deploy the coffee files, use something like "coffee -cwj" to constantly watch and compile the .coffee files into javascript (.js) files and deploy those.
The options are c=compile, w=watch and j=join the files.
See the coffee-script web site for details of the options you can pass in.
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 need some advice on configuring a project so it works in development, staging and production environments:
I have a web app project, MainProject, that contains two sub-projects, ProjectA and ProjectB, as well as some common code, Common. It's in a Subversion repository. It's nearly all HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
In our current development environment we check MainProject out, then set up Apache virtual hosts to point at each of the sub-project's directories, as paths within each project are relative to their root. We also have a build process that then compiles each of the sub-projects into their own deliverable package, with the common code copied into each.
So - I'm trying to make development of this project a bit easier. At the moment there is a lot of configuration of file paths in Apache http.conf files, as well as the build.xml file and in a couple of other places too.
Ideally I'd like the project to be checked out of SVN onto a fresh computer, with a web server as part of the project, fully configured, that can then be run from the checkout directory with very little extra configuration, either on a PC or Mac. And I'd like anyone to be able to run the build to compile it too.
I'd love to hear from anyone who has done something like this, and any advice you have.
Thanks,
Paul
If you can add python as a dependency, you can get a minimal HTTP server running in less than ten lines of code. If you have basic server side code, there is a CGI server as well.
The following snippet is copied directly from the BaseHTTPServer documentation
import BaseHTTPServer
def run(server_class=BaseHTTPServer.HTTPServer,
handler_class=BaseHTTPServer.BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
server_address = ('', 8000)
httpd = server_class(server_address, handler_class)
httpd.serve_forever()
I've done this with Jetty, from within Java. Basically you write a simple Java class that starts Jetty (which is a small web server) - you can make then this run via an ant task (I used it with automated tests - Java code made requests to the server and checked the results in various ways).
Not sure it's appropriate here because you don't mention Java at all, so apologies if it's not the kind of thing you're looking for.