I've been asked to write scope the effort for rebranding a significant iPhone/iPad application for multiple customers, locale, languages, etc. Each incarnation of the rebrand might include different look and feel, possibly different behavior, or subsets of functionality.
My initial impression is it should be possible to use a single xCode project, and just include multiple .plist files targeted to specific project configurations. I'm unsure exactly how to accomplish this in xCode, thus I'm not sure how to accurately estimate the effort required.
I'm looking for pointers and developer references to find the most reasonable method to rebrand an existing app multiple times without forking new xCode project each time.
The feature I've been looking for is called "Targets" in xCode.
I'm going to use these as described here to deploy my single project into multiple binaries.
I'm not sure that's possible but with MVC, Cocoa makes it easy to localize apps.
I've used a client-server approach, where everything specific to one customer is downloaded or configured from a remote server. You still need customers with overlapping requirements, but you can switch on/off modules based on the needs of a particular customer.
Low-tech approach: grab the data, configuration files, and images from a different location in the file system. Or the same location, but drop the new customer data into the directory and archive the old. A plist, a text file, a series of #defines, etc, can switch a behavior on or off. Write your code so that it doesn't know how many images, which modules, what color the buttons are, etc, until it checks the configuration and gets the data and images it needs from your directory.
I'm developing a web app.
If I include a jQuery plugin (or the jQuery file itself), this has to be put under my static directory, which is under SCM, to be served correctly.
Should I gitignore it, or add it, even if I don't plan on modifying anything from it?
And what about binary files (graphic resources) that might come with it?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
My view is that everything you need for your application to run correctly needs to be managed. This includes third-party code.
If you don't put it under SCM, how is it going to get deployed correctly on your production systems? If you have other ways of ensuring that, that's fine, but otherwise you run the risk that successful deployment is a matter of people remembering to do all the right things, rather than some automated low-risk "push the button" procedure.
If you don't manage it under SCM or something similar, how do you ensure that the versions you develop against and test against are the same? And that they're the same as production? Debugging an issue caused by a version difference you don't notice can be horrible.
I generally add external resources to my project directly. Doing so facilitates deployment and ensures that if someone changes the version of this file in your project, you have a clear audit history of what happened in case it causes issues in the code that you've written. Developers should know not to modify these external resources.
You could use something like git submodules, I suppose, but I haven't felt that this is worth the hassle in the past.
Binary files from external sources can be checked in to the project as well, although if they're extremely large you may want to consider a different approach.
There aren't a lot of reasons not to put external resources like jQuery into your repo:
If you pull it down from jQuery every time you check out or deploy, you have less control over which version you're using. This holds true for most third-party libraries; you probably don't want to upgrade your libraries without testing with your code to see if it breaks something.
You'll always have a complete copy of your site when you check out your repository and you won't need to go seeking resources that may have become unavailable.
For small (in terms of filesize) things like jQuery and images, I'd just add them unless you're really, really concerned about space.
It depends.
These arguments relate to having a copy of the library on your system and not pulling it from it's original location.
Arguments in favour:
It will ensure that everything needed for your project can be found in one place when someone else joins your development team. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to scramble around looking for the right versions of libraries in order to be able to get something working.
If you make any modifications to the library you can make these changes to the source controlled version so when a new version comes out you use the source control's merging tools to ensure your edits don't go missing.
Arguments against:
It could mean everyone has a copy of the library locally - unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server.
Deploying could be problematical - again unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server and don't include them in the deploy script.
This is a debate I'm taking a part in. I would like to get more opinions and points of view.
We have some classes that are generated in build time to handle DB operations (in This specific case, with SubSonic, but I don't think it is very important for the question). The generation is set as a pre-build step in Visual Studio. So every time a developer (or the official build process) runs a build, these classes are generated, and then compiled into the project.
Now some people are claiming, that having these classes saved in source control could cause confusion, in case the code you get, doesn't match what would have been generated in your own environment.
I would like to have a way to trace back the history of the code, even if it is usually treated as a black box.
Any arguments or counter arguments?
UPDATE: I asked this question since I really believed there is one definitive answer. Looking at all the responses, I could say with high level of certainty, that there is no such answer. The decision should be made based on more than one parameter. Reading the answers below could provide a very good guideline to the types of questions you should be asking yourself when having to decide on this issue.
I won't select an accepted answer at this point for the reasons mentioned above.
Saving it in source control is more trouble than it's worth.
You have to do a commit every time you do a build for it to be any value.
Generally we leave generated code( idl, jaxb stuff, etc) outside source control where I work and it's never been a problem
Put it in source code control. The advantage of having the history of everything you write available for future developers outweighs the minor pain of occasionally rebuilding after a sync.
Every time I want to show changes to a source tree on my own personal repo, all the 'generated files' will show up as having changed and need comitting.
I would prefer to have a cleaner list of modifications that only include real updates that were performed, and not auto-generated changes.
Leave them out, and then after a build, add an 'ignore' on each of the generated files.
Look at it this way: do you check your object files into source control? Generated source files are build artifacts just like object files, libraries and executables. They should be treated the same. Most would argue that you shouldn't be checking generated object files and executables into source control. The same arguments apply to generated source.
If you need to look at the historical version of a generated file you can sync to the historical version of its sources and rebuild.
Checking generated files of any sort into source control is analogous to database denormalization. There are occasionally reasons to do this (typically for performance), but this should be done only with great care as it becomes much harder to maintain correctness and consistency once the data is denormalized.
I would say that you should avoid adding any generated code (or other artifacts) to source control. If the generated code is the same for the given input then you could just check out the versions you want to diff and generate the code for comparison.
I call the DRY principle. If you already have the "source files" in the repository which are used to generate these code files at build time, there is no need to have the same code committed "twice".
Also, you might avert some problems this way if for example the code generation breaks someday.
No, for three reasons.
Source code is everything necessary and sufficient to reproduce a snapshot of your application as of some current or previous point in time - nothing more and nothing less. Part of what this implies is that someone is responsible for everything checked in. Generally I'm happy to be responsible for the code I write, but not the code that's generated as a consequence of what I write.
I don't want someone to be tempted to try to shortcut a build from primary sources by using intermediate code that may or may not be current (and more importantly that I don't want to accept responsibility for.) And't it's too tempting for some people to get caught up in a meaningless process about debugging conflicts in intermediate code based on partial builds.
Once it's in source control, I accept responsibility for a. it being there, b. it being current, and c. it being reliably integratable with everything else in there. That includes removing it when I'm no longer using it. The less of that responsibility the better.
I really don't think you should check them in.
Surely any change in the generated code is either going to be noise - changes between environments, or changes as a result of something else - e.g. a change in your DB. If your DB's creation scripts (or any other dependencies) are in source control then why do you need the generated scripts as well?
The general rule is no, but if it takes time to generate the code (because of DB access, web services, etc.) then you might want to save a cached version in the source control and save everyone the pain.
Your tooling also need to be aware of this and handle checking-out from the source control when needed, too many tools decide to check out from the source control without any reason.
A good tool will use the cached version without touching it (nor modifying the time steps on the file).
Also you need to put big warning inside the generated code for people to not modify the file, a warning at the top is not enough, you have to repeat it every dozen lines.
We don't store generated DB code either: since it is generated, you can get it at will at any given version from the source files. Storing it would be like storing bytecode or such.
Now, you need to ensure the code generator used at a given version is available! Newer versions can generate different code...
There is a special case where you want to check in your generated files: when you may need to build on systems where tools used to generate the other files aren't available. The classic example of this, and one I work with, is Lex and Yacc code. Because we develop a runtime system that has to build and run on a huge variety of platforms and architectures, we can only rely on target systems to have C and C++ compilers, not the tools necessary to generate the lexing/parsing code for our interface definition translator. Thus, when we change our grammars, we check in the generated code to parse it.
Leave it out.
If you're checking in generated files you're doing something wrong. What's wrong may differ, it could be that your build process is inefficient, or something else, but I can't see it ever being a good idea. History should be associated with the source files, not the generated ones.
It just creates a headache for people who then end up trying to resolve differences, find the files that are no longer generated by the build and then delete them, etc.
A world of pain awaits those who check in generated files!
In some projects I add generated code to source control, but it really depends. My basic guideline is if the generated code is an intrinsic part of the compiler then I won't add it. If the generated code is from an external tool, such as SubSonic in this case, then I would add if to source control. If you periodically upgrade the component then I want to know the changes in the generated source in case bugs or issues arise.
As far as generated code needing to be checked in, a worst case scenario is manually differencing the files and reverting the files if necessary. If you are using svn, you can add a pre-commit hook in svn to deny a commit if the file hasn't really changed.
arriving a bit late ... anyway ...
Would you put compiler's intermediate file into source version control ?
In case of code generation, by definition the source code is the input of the generator while the generated code can be considered as intermediate files between the "real" source and the built application.
So I would say: don't put generated code under version control, but the generator and its input.
Concretely, I work with a code generator I wrote: I never had to maintain the generated source code under version control. I would even say that since the generator reached a certain maturity level, I didn't have to observe the contents of generated code although the input (for instance model description) changed.
The job of configuration management (of which version control is just one part) is to be able to do the following:
Know which changes and bug fixes have gone into every delivered build.
Be able to reproduce exactly any delivered build, starting from the original source code. Automatically generated code does not count as "source code" regardless of the language.
The first one ensures that when you tell the client or end user "the bug you reported last week is fixed and the new feature has been added" they don't come back two hours later and say "no it hasn't". It also makes sure they don't say "Why is it doing X? We never asked for X".
The second one means that when the client or end user reports a bug in some version you issued a year ago you can go back to that version, reproduce the bug, fix it, and prove that it was your fix has eliminated the bug rather than some perturbation of compiler and other fixes.
This means that your compiler, libraries etc also need to be part of CM.
So now to answer your question: if you can do all the above then you don't need to record any intermediate representations, because you are guaranteed to get the same answer anyway. If you can't do all the above then all bets are off because you can never guarantee to do the same thing twice and get the same answer. So you might as well put all your .o files under version control as well.
There are good arguments both for and against presented here.
For the record, I build the T4 generation system in Visual Studio and our default out-of-the-box option causes generated code to be checked in. You have to work a bit harder if you prefer not to check in.
For me the key consideration is diffing the generated output when either the input or generator itself is updated.
If you don't have your output checked in, then you have to take a copy of all generated code before upgrading a generator or modifying input in order to be able to compare that with the output from the new version. I think this is a fairly tedious process, but with checked in output, it's a simple matter of diffing the new output against the repository.
At this point, it is reasonable to ask "Why do you care about changes in generated code?" (Especially as compared to object code.)
I believe there are a few key reasons, which come down to the current state of the art rather than any inherent problem.
You craft handwritten code that meshes tightly with generated code. That's not the case on the whole with obj files these days. When the generated code changes, it's sadly quite often the case that some handwritten code needs to change to match. Folks often don't observe a high degree of backwards compatibility with extensibility points in generated code.
Generated code simply changes its behavior. You wouldn't tolerate this from a compiler, but in fairness, an application-level code generator is targeting a different field of problem with a wider range of acceptable solutions. It's important to see if assumptions you made about previous behavior are now broken.
You just don't 100% trust the output of your generator from release to release. There's a lot of value to be had from generator tools even if they aren't built and maintained with the rigor of your compiler vendor. Release 1.0 might have been perfectly stable for your application but maybe 1.1 has a few glitches for your use case now. Alternatively you change input values and find that you are exercisig a new piece of the generator that you hadn't used before - potentially you get surprised by the results.
Essentially all of these things come down to tool maturity - most business app code generators aren't close to the level that compilers or even lex/yacc-level tools have been for years.
Both side have valid and reasonable argument, and it's difficult to agree on something common. Version Control Systems (VCSs) tracks the files
developers put into it, and have the assumption that the files inside VCS are hand crafted by developers, and developers are interested in the history
and change between any revision of the files. This assumption equalize the two concepts, "I want to get this file when I do checkout." and "I am
interested in the change of this file."
Now, the arguments from both sides could be rephrase like this:
"I want to get all these generated files when I do checkout, because I don't have the tool to generate them in this machine."
"I should not put them into VCS, since I am not interested in the change of this file."
Fortunately, it seems that the two requirements are not conflicting fundamentally. With some extension of current VCSs, it should be possible to have
both. In other words, it's a false dilemma. If we ponder a while, it's not hard to realize that the problem stems from the assumption VCSs hold. VCSs
should distinguish the files, which are hand crafted by developers, from files which are not hand crafted by developers, but just happens to be inside
this VCS. For the first category of files, which we call source files (code) usually, VCSs have done great job now. For the latter category, VCSs have
not had such concept yet, as far as I know.
Summary
I will take git as one example to illustrate what I mean.
git status should not show generated files by default.
git commit should include generated files as snapshot.
git diff should not show generated files by default.
PS
Git hooks could be used as a workaround, but it would be great if git supports it natively. gitignore doesn't meet our requirement, for ignored
files won't go into VCSs.enter code here
I would argue for. If you're using a continuous integration process that checks out the code, modifies the build number, builds the software and then tests it, then it's simpler and easier to just have that code as part of your repository.
Additionally, it's part and parcel of every "snapshot" that you take of your software repository. If it's part of the software, then it should be part of the repository.
It really depends. Ultimately, the goal is to be able to reproduce what you had if need be. If you are able to regenerate your binaries exactly, there is no need to store them. but you need to remember that in order to recreate your stuff you will probably need your exact configuration you did it with in the first place, and that not only means your source code, but also your build environment, your IDE, maybe even other libraries, generators or stuff, in the exact configuration (versions) you have used.
I have run into trouble in projects were we upgraded our build environment to newer versions or even to another vendors', where we were unable to recreate the exact binaries we had before. This is a real pain when the binaries to be deplyed depend on a kind of hash, especially in secured environment, and the recreated files somehow differ because of compiler upgrades or whatever.
So, would you store generated code: I would say no. The binaries or deliverables that are released, including the tools that you reproduced them with I would store. And then, there is no need to store them in source control, just make a good backup of those files.
I (regretfully) wind up putting a lot of derived sources under source control because I work remotely with people who either can't be bothered to set up a proper build environment or who don't have the skills to set it up so that the derived sources are built exactly right. (And when it comes to Gnu autotools, I am one of those people myself! I can't work with three different systems each of which works with a different version of autotools—and only that version.)
This sort of difficulty probably applies more to part-time, volunteer, open-source projects than to paid projects where the person paying the bills can insist on a uniform build environment.
When you do this, you're basically committing to building the derived files only at one site, or only at properly configured sites. Your Makefiles (or whatever) should be set up to notice where they are running and should refuse to re-derive sources unless they know they are running at a safe build site.
The correct answer is "It Depends". It depends upon what the client's needs are.
If you can roll back code to a particular release and stand up to any external audit's without it, then you're still not on firm ground. As dev's we need to consider not just 'noise', pain and disk space, but the fact that we are tasked with the role of generating intellectual property and there may be legal ramifications. Would you be able to prove to a judge that you're able to regenerate a web site exactly the way a customer saw it two years ago?
I'm not suggesting you save or don't save gen'd files, whichever way you decide if you're not involving the Subject Matter Experts of the decision you're probably wrong.
My two cents.
I would say that yes you want to put it under source control. From a configuration management standpoint EVERYTHING that is used to produce a software build needs to be controlled so that it can be recreated. I understand that generated code can easily be recreated, but an argument can be made that it is not the same since the date/timestamps will be different between the two builds. In some areas such as government, they require a lot of times this is what's done.
In general, generated code need not be stored in source control because the revision history of this code can be traced by the revision history of the code that generated it!
However, it sounds the OP is using the generated code as the data access layer of the application instead of manually writing one. In this case, I would change the build process, and commit the code to source control because it is a critical component of the runtime code. This also removes the dependency on the code generation tool from the build process in case the developers need to use different version of the tool for different branches.
It seems that the code only needs to be generated once instead of every build. When a developer needs to add/remove/change the way an object accesses the database, the code should be generated again, just like making manual modifications. This speeds up the build process, allows manual optimizations to be made to the data access layer, and history of the data access layer is retained in a simple manner.
If it is part of the source code then it should be put in source control regardless of who or what generates it. You want your source control to reflect the current state of your system without having to regenerate it.
Absolutely have the generated code in source control, for many reasons. I'm reiterating what a lot of people have already said, but some reasons I'd do it are
With codefiles in source control, you'll potentially be able to compile the code without using your Visual Studio pre-build step.
When you're doing a full comparison between two versions, it would be nice to know if the generated code changed between those two tags, without having to manually check it.
If the code generator itself changes, then you'll want to make sure that the changes to the generated code changes appropriately. i.e. If your generator changes, but the output isn't supposed to change, then when you go to commit your code, there will be no differences between what was previously generated and what's in the generated code now.
I would leave generated files out of a source tree, but put it in a separate build tree.
e.g. workflow is
checkin/out/modify/merge source normally (w/o any generated files)
At appropriate occasions, check out source tree into a clean build tree
After a build, checkin all "important" files ("real" source files, executables + generated source file) that must be present for auditing/regulatory purposes. This gives you a history of all appropriate generated code+executables+whatever, at time increments that are related to releases / testing snapshots, etc. and decoupled from day-to-day development.
There's probably good ways in Subversion/Mercurial/Git/etc to tie the history of the real source files in both places together.
Looks like there are very strong and convincing opinions on both sides. I would recommend reading all the top voted answers, and then deciding what arguments apply to your specific case.
UPDATE: I asked this question since I really believed there is one definitive answer. Looking at all the responses, I could say with high level of certainty, that there is no such answer. The decision should be made based on more than one parameter. Reading the other answers could provide a very good guideline to the types of questions you should be asking yourself when having to decide on this issue.
I do alot of bugfixing and implementing new features for several different customers. These customers all report their bugs, change requests and new feature request into our Trac system.
Sometimes these requests result in me creating some SQL change scripts, sometimes there are Excel documents or Access databases with testdata, Word documents from the customer and so on. Alot of files that are used to fix one ticket and then can be deletede when the ticket is closed.
I usualy do this by creating folders in the filesystem like this: /customerXX/TicketNNNNN and then just dumping everything in there.
How do you organize your workfiles? Have you found some fantastic tool to do this?
I would say for scripts or files that are related to a particular ticket, the best thing to do would be to attach the file to that ticket in your issue tracking software - almost all issue trackers that I've worked with will allow you to do this. That way, you can look back and a) see exactly what you did in case something goes wrong, or b) do exactly the same thing if the issue comes up again later. That's almost certainly the best place to keep files with extra info from the customer, too (or at least the first place most people will look).
For frequently re-used scripts that aren't specific to a particular ticket, I would create a scripts/ or bin/ directory in the associated project, and keep them in there.
I also have a small handful of useful files that I keep in src/misc/ off my home directory, with things like SQL queries to get readable "explain" output out of Oracle and such, that aren't specific to any particular project. The number of these is small enough that subdirectories aren't necessary, though - I suspect if you ended up with a large number of these files, many of them could/should be moved to specific projects or your issue tracking system.
JIRA has been quite helpful for this at my site. It supports issue tracking, file attachments,and you can easily customize and categorize your projects and issues.
I use Fogbugz and I add all file to the case. I believe that no matter what application you use, The important is to keep this files for future references. If your bug-tracking tool does not let you attach file then add the files to the version control.
We use CaWeb4 and find it very easy to use for our bug tracking.
In order to provide nice URLs between parts of our app we split everything up into several modules which are compiled independently. For example, there is a "manager" portion and an "editor" portion. The editor launches in a new window. By doing this we can link to the editor directly:
/com.example.EditorApp?id=1
The EditorApp module just gets the value for id and loads up the document.
The problem with this is ALL of the code which is common between the two modules is duplicated in the output. This includes any static content (graphics), stylesheets, etc.
And another problem is the compile time to generate JavaScript is nearly double because we have some complex code shared between both modules which has to be processed twice.
Has anyone dealt with this? I'm considering scrapping the separate modules and merging it all back into one compile target. The only drawback is the URLs between our "apps" become something like:
/com.example.MainApp?mode=editor&id=1
Every window loads the main module, checks the value of the mode parameter, and and calls the the appropriate module init code.
I have built a few very large applications in GWT, and I find it best to split things up into modules, and move the common code into it's own area, like you've done. The reason in our case was simple, we had some parts of our application that were very different to the rest, so it made sense from a compile size point of view. Our application compiled down to 300kb for the main section, and about 25-40kb for other sections. Had we just put them all in one the user would have been left with a 600kb download, which for us was not acceptable.
It also makes more sense from a design and re-usability point of view to seperate things out as much as possible, as we have since re-used a lot of modules that we built on this project.
Compile time is not something you should generally worry about, because you can actually make it faster if you have seperate modules. We use ant to build our project, and we set it to only compile the GWT that has changed, and during development to only build for one browser, typical compile times on our project are 20 seconds, and we have a lot of code. You can see and example of this here.
One other minor thing: I assume you know that you don't have to use the default GWT paths that it generates? So instead of com.MyPackage.Package you could just put it into a folder with a nice name like 'ui' or something. Once compiled GWT doesn't care where you put it, and is not sensitive to path changes, because it all runs from the same directory.
From my experience building GWT apps, there's a few things to consider when deciding on whether you want multiple modules (with or without entry points), or all in one: download time (Javascript bundle size), compile time, navigation/url, and maintainability/re-usability.
...per download time, code splitting pretty much obviates the need to break into different modules for performance reasons.
...per compile time, even big apps are pretty quick to compile, but it might help breaking things up for huge apps.
...per navigation/url, it can be a pain to navigate from one module to another (assuming different EntryPoints), since each module has it's own client-side state...and navigation isn't seamless across modules.
...per maintainability/re-usability, it can be helpful from an organization/structure perspective to split into separate modules (even if there's only one EntryPoint).
I wrote a blog post about using GWT Modules, in case it helps.
Ok. I really get the sense there really is no "right" answer because projects vary so much. It's very much dependent on the nature of the application.
Our main build is composed of a number of in-house modules and 3rd party modules. They are all managed in seperate projects. That makes sense since they are used in different places.
But having more than one module in a single project designed to operate as one complete application seems to have overcomplicated things. The original reason for the two modules was to keep the URL simple when opening different screens in a new window. Even though had multiple build targets they all use a very large common subset of code (including a custom XML/POJO marshalling library).
About size... for us, one module was 280KB and the other was just over 300KB.
I just got finished merging everything back into one single module. The new combined module is around 380KB. So it's actually a bit less to download since most everyone would use both screens.
Also remember there is perfect caching, so that 380KB should only ever downloaded once, unless the app is changed.