Why should the Gradle Wrapper be committed to VCS? - version-control

From Gradle's documentation:
The scripts generated by this task are intended to be committed to
your version control system. This task also generates a small
gradle-wrapper.jar bootstrap JAR file and properties file which should
also be committed to your VCS. The scripts delegates to this JAR.
From: What should NOT be under source control?
I think generated files should not be in the VCS.
When are gradlew and gradle/gradle-wrapper.jar needed?
Why not store a gradle version in the build.gradle file?

Because the whole point of the gradle wrapper is to be able, without having ever installed gradle, and without even knowing how it works, where to download it from, which version, to clone the project from the VCS, to execute the gradlew script it contains, and to build the project without any additional step.
If all you had was a gradle version number in a build.gradle file, you would need a README explaining everyone that gradle version X must be downloaded from URL Y and installed, and you would have to do it every time the version is incremented.

Because the whole point of the Gradle wrapper is to be able, without having ever installed Gradle
Same argument goes for the JDK, do you want to commit that also? Do you also commit all your dependency libraries?
The dependencies should be upgraded continuously as new versions are released to get security and other bug fixes, and because if you get to far behind it can be a very time consuming task to get up to date again.
If the Gradle wrapper is incremented for every new release, and it is committed, the repo will grow very large. The problem is obvious when working with distributed VCS where a clone will download all versions of everything.
and without even knowing how it works
Create a build script that downloads the wrapper and uses it to build. Everyone does not need to know how the script works, they need to agree that the project is build by executing it.
where to download it from, which version
task wrapper(type: Wrapper) {
gradleVersion = 'X.X'
}
for Gradle version >= 5:
wrapper {
gradleVersion = 'X.X'
}
and then
gradle wrapper
to download the correct version.
to clone the project from the VCS, to execute the gradlew script it contains, and to build the project without any additional step.
Solved by the steps above. Downloading the Gradle wrapper is not different from downloading any other dependency. The script could be smart enough to check for any current Gradle wrapper and only download it if there is a new version.
If the developer has never used Gradle before and maybe doesn't know the project is built with Gradle, then it is more obvious to run a build.sh compared to running gradlew build.
If all you had was a gradle version number in a build.gradle file, you would need a README explaining everyone that gradle version X must be downloaded from URL Y an installed,
No, you would not need a README. You could have one, but we are developers and we should automate as much as possible. Creating a script is better.
and you would have to do it every time the version is incremented.
If the developers agree that the correct process is to:
Clone repo
Run build script
Then there upgrading to latest Gradle wrapper is no problem. If the version is incremented since last run, the script could download the new version.

I would like to recommend a simple approach.
In your project's README, document that an installation step is required, namely:
gradle wrapper --gradle-version 3.3
This works with Gradle 2.4 or higher. This creates a wrapper without requiring a dedicated task to be added to "build.gradle".
With this option, ignore (do not check in) these files/folders for version control:
./gradle
gradlew
gradlew.bat
The key benefit is that you don't have to check-in a downloaded file to source control. It costs one extra step on installation. I think it is worth it.

According to Gradle docs, adding gradle-wrapper.jar to VCS is expected as making Gradle Wrapper available to developers is part of the Gradle approach:
To make the Wrapper files available to other developers and execution environments you’ll need to check them into version control. All Wrapper files including the JAR file are very small in size. Adding the JAR file to version control is expected. Some organizations do not allow projects to submit binary files to version control. At the moment there are no alternative options to the approach.

What is the "project"?
Maybe there is a technical definition of this idiom that excludes build scripts. But if we accept this definition, then we must say your "project" is not all the things that you need to versioned!
But if we say "your project" is everything you have done. Then we can say you must include it and only it into VCS.
This is very theoretical and maybe not practical in case of our development works. So we change it to "your project is every file (or folder) you need to editing them directly".
"directly" means "not indirectly" and "indirectly" means by editing another file and then an effect will be reflected into this file.
So we reach the same that OP said (and is said here):
I think Generated files should not be in the VCS.
Yes. Because you haven't created them. So they are not part of "your project" according to the second definition.
What is the result about these files:
build.gradle: Yes. We need to edit it. Our works should be versioned.
Note: There is no difference where you edit it. Whether in your text editor environment or in Project Structure GUI environment. Anyway you doing it directly!
gradle-wrapper.properties: Yes. We need to at least determine Gradle version in this file.
gradle-wrapper.jar and gradlew[.bat]: I haven't created or edited them in any of my development works, till this moment! So the answer is "No". If you have done so, the answer is "Yes" about you at that work (and about the same file you edited).
The important note about the latest case is the user who clones your repo, needs to execute this command on repo's <root-directory> to auto-generate wrapper files:
> gradle wrapper --gradle-version=$v --distribution-type=$distType
$v and $distType are determined from gradle-wrapper.properties:
distributionUrl=https\://services.gradle.org/distributions/gradle-{$v}-{$distType}.zip
See https://gradle.org/install/ for more information.
gradle executable is bin/gradle[.bat] in local distribution. It's not required that local distribution be same as that determined in the repo. After wrapper files created then gradlew[.bat] can download determined Gradle distribution automatically (if not exists locally). Then he/she probably must regenerate wrapper files using new gradle executable (in downloaded distribution) using above instructions.
Note: In the above instructions, supposed the user has at least one Gradle distribution locally (e.g. ~/.gradle/wrapper/dists/gradle-4.10-bin/bg6py687nqv2mbe6e1hdtk57h/gradle-4.10). It covers almost all real cases. But what happens if the user hasn't any distribution already?
He/She can download it manually using the URL in .properties file. But if he/she doesn't locate it in the path that the wrapper expected, the wrapper will download it again! The expected path is completely predictable but is out of the subject (see here for the most complex part).
There are also some easier (but dirty) ways. For example, he/she can copy wrapper files (except .properties file) from any other local/remote repository to his/her repository and then run gradlew on his/her repository. It will automatically download the suitable distribution.

Old question, fresh answer. If you don't upgrade gradle often (most of us don't), it's better to commit it to VCS. And the main reason for me is to increase the build speed on the CI server. Nowadays, most of the projects are getting built and installed by CI servers, different server instance every time.
If you don't commit it, CI server will download a jar for every build and it significantly increases a build time. There are other ways to handle this problem, but I find this one the easiest to maintain.

Related

What is the best way to deploy a Jar file?

Background
I'm working on a project where we host a Java software and an R companion package on Github. The R package can be easily installed directly from source using devtools::install_github() but the Jar file has to be built first.
As the R package depends on functions in the Jar file, this creates a problem since Jar and R package are often out of sync and users can't utilize newer functions until we make a new release. Since the changes in the Jar are often tiny it doesn't always make sense to create a new release though.
Ideal solution (?)
There are two approaches which I could think of but I'm not quite sure which makes more sense and would have to spend some more time figuring each one out:
Write a function in R which downloads the source from GitHub and builds the Jar via something like system("jar cfe myJar.jar myClass myClass.class". Ideally, there is a package for this but I couldn't find one. I would also first have to figure out how to download the source files though.
Implement an automatic deploy that uploads the Jar to the same release after every commit. I saw that Travis CI can build the Jar file but it creates a new release for every commit or only from tagged commits, which is not ideal. It would be better if we could have one release which is overwritten with the most current Jar file on every commit.
Does anybody have experience with this/can point me to a repository where something like this is implemented/can show me a better solution?

Scripted builds of C++ Eclipse Managed Makefiles

I have a collection of C++ projects that use managed makefiles inside Eclipse. I build them all, and run an existing deploy script to place all the compiled results into a target directory on the system.
I'd like a way to automate the build process without having to open the IDE, but due to external constraints from the project owner, I have to use managed make.
Once I kickoff a build for the first time inside the Eclipse IDE, the Debug / Release directories are created, and the makefiles are autogenerated. Once they are all present, I can call make from the command line, across all the projects, run an overall deploy script, etc. This will work up until the point that code changes would cause the makefiles to differ (adding/removing source files, or changing build parameters) The big problem with this is that it requires me to open eclipse and manually cause the generation of the makefiles.
I see two options:
Check the generated makefiles into revsion control (even though they're generated, I know), and commit them whenever they, after generation, have differed from the previous content.
Find a way to either open eclipse in a scriptable way, and cause makefile generation, or to find some alternate way to generate the makefiles from the .project files.
Option 1 is obviously subject to problems if I or other developers don't remember to commit the files, or if we update the Debug makefile but not the Release makefile, etc. It also makes me feel dirty to commit a generated file.
Option 2 seems much better, if its feasible.
Does a method to do option 2 exist? Are there other options I haven't considered?
I recognize similarity with a continouous integration server, but This is not the same use case. Essentially I'm building a package that gets installed on a development system as a testing release of a system library. So I'm operating as a developer, I just want to reduce variance out of the deploy process itself.

Automating build tasks using eclipse / maven m2e

I am about to use maven to automate my builds. Unfortunately, I am not able to get all the features I want, even after reading several tutorials :(
I would be glad if somebody could explain a way I can achieve all my goals!
I want to automate 3 specific build tasks with several actions for a project from within eclipse, using m2e:
Build snapshot
compile
define current project version + date as version
build jar file
copy jar file into the local repository in the project path itself (§{project}/builds/)
Debug snapshot
build snapshot as mentioned above
copy jar file to plugins folder of a local test server
build another project the current project depends on, copy its jar file to the plugins folder aswell
launch server / connect to eclipse debugger (I know how to do that, the previous steps are the important ones)
Create release
compile
define current project version as version
build jar file
copy jar file into the local repository in the project path itself
create javadoc
copy source files and javadoc to an archive folder
increase the project version (for example v6 -> v7)
As mentioned I don't need a perfect solution, just a way to realize this ;)
(Annotation: Chaining multiple launch configurations is not a problem.)
Edit:
Which sections of the pom.xml do I have to modify to realize these steps and how can I invoke them using an eclipse launch configuration?
Hi based on your requirements i can say the following:
Build Snapshots
Building a SNAPSHOT is usually the convention during development cycle.
1.1 just using the conventions.
1.2 Date as version
This is a bad idea, cause Maven has some conventions how a version looks like (1.0-SNAPSHOT or 1.2.3-SNAPSHOT etc.)
1.3 Build jar file
Usually done by the jar life cycle (mvn package)
1.4 The local repository is on your home drive in ${HOME}/.m2/repository for all your projects. Technically you can do what you like but it's against the Maven conventions. The question is why do you need such thing?
2.1 Usual procedure
2.2 Usually a deployment is not a job for Maven but you can do such things by using cargo-maven-plugin (integration testing).
2.3 If you have dependencies between project you need CI solution like Jenkins to do such things otherwise you need to do this manually. But that is different from a multi-module build.
2.4 Integration testing different story. Depends on what exactly you like to do.
3.
1-7
The maven-release-plugin will handle such things except copying to the project path itself which is against the conventions. For such purposes you need a repository manager.
I can recommand reading these books: http://www.sonatype.com/Support/Books

Eclipse compilation issue

I have a large codebase added into the Eclipse project and have added one External Tool providing the path where the class for that java file is to be kept and the Classpath. The build folder is somewhere else.
Now when I need to compile only one file, Eclipse starts building whole of the codebase(>100 MB of Java files), it takes my system down and I have to wait for the whole compilation to go through.
Can only one java file be compiled without building the whole code?
Any pointers would be helpful.
I think you would benefit greatly with a build tool, such as ant or maven. You can have a target to compile only one class without building the whole code, or any other related task.
Have you built the project at least once ?
Eclipse builds incrementally using the saved state from the previous build. So if you build your project once, the subsequent builds would only pick up the changes made "after" the previous build.

Managing dependencies with Eclipse and CVS

I have a bit of code for a dll that is needed by two or more projects in eclipse. Currently each project has a copy of the code and builds the DLL separately. I want to separate the dll code into a separate eclipse project so there is a common location. But I want to avoid the situation where we have to build the dll in the one project, then copy the dll back to the other projects and check the dll to each respective project. This will create a dll for each project that isn't traceable to the exact code that it was built with.
Is there a way to somehow symbolically link the dlls to another eclipse project that is using CVS as the version control system so that it is possible to tell which version of the code was used to create the dll? Am I making this too complicated or missing something obvious?
I thought about working sets in the package manager for eclipse, but I have to investigate more on how to use them with CVS to avoid making it a nightmare for the next person who checks it out and can't figure out why their project won't compile.
Thanks.
What about creating a new folder in a separate project. In the advanced section of creating a new folder there is an option to link to another location on the file system.
Or you could also create a container project that makes use of a projectset.psf file. Have the projectset file link to the different projects in your repository. When you want to check out that project, check out the container instead and right click on the projectset file and select Import Project Set...
If you are working with one workspace, you end up with three projects, each mirrored in CVS: One is the dll, the others are the projects using the dll (configured as a project dependency of these projects upon the dll project).
With three projects I wouldn't aim for working sets - they are good for managing a lot of projects within one workspace, for three projects, I'd consider them overkill. I usually tend to aim for several workspaces instead of working sets.
Regarding the next person working with these projects: You need to keep some kind of documentation about how to setup your projects. You might say that your eclipse project files do just that (as they define a project dependency upon another project) but this is for the machine - humans tend to like other communication means.
If you are worried about changes to the dll being incompatible to one project (because the person applying these changes doesn't care about the other project), aim for a build server. This will build all projects and dependent projects whenever something under version control changes, run all tests, provide a build number and package it all ready for use. This way you can be sure that - whatever is in your deliverable - can be reproduced, because the buildserver is not able to make local (uncommitted) changes to the code. Also a buildserver will signal failure (either broken API or broken tests) at the moment of the last commit (well - a few minutes later) and place the burden of repairing the damage on the one causing the damage.