I have a big ASP.NET Core project and a subdirectory which has an Angular 5 project.
The current VSTS build process takes about 20 minutes, and the npm install and angular build --prod are taking the longest time.
And, when I push something NOT RELATED to Angular, the build process will build everything again including the Angular project.
I'm thinking of two options:
Having a separated Angular build definition with a trigger for file changing in Angular dir.
Or having a smart condition in npm tasks that can know if something changed in Angular (And here is my question)
(or any other suggestions :D )
By something related, you mean whenever you make a change in your ASP.NET Core project?
If that is indeed the case, two build defintions should be setup for the Angular project and the .NET Core project. Both can have the trigger to build on check in and it will only build that certain set of files
If you want an integration build that creates a single artifact for release, you can setup a third build definition that you can trigger manually
I have 2 projects in eclipse:
Project A
Project B
Project A is a Java REST API that I would like to be automatically published when anything changes.
Project B is the front end, I have a build process that converts TypeScript e.t.c into the relevant JavaScript. I write the build folder directly into it's Tomcat Location - I don't want it to be in my project.
With this is mind, is there a way for me to configure Eclipse so that:
Project A has the Automatic Publishing Option
Project B never gets Automatically published.
I know I can either enable/disable automatic publishing globally but I would like to do it on a project specific basis.
I don't think this is possible in Eclipse. But I've been using the built in support for Gulp tasks which has made things easier - I can configure whether or not to refresh projects when a task is ran.
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.
I'm evaluating Maven 3 at work. For several example projects I have to deploy them to a server (no repository), but that's not the problem.
In my current example-project I'm trying to upload only the "jar-with-dependencies".
and exactly that's my problem.
It all works fine, except that the main-artifact AND the jar-with-dependencies (created by the assembly-plugin) are uploaded.
How do I prevent Maven or rather the deploy-phase from uploading the main-jar and only upload a given or specified file (in this case, the assembly-file "jar-with-dependencies")?
Referring to the question Only create executable jar-with-dependencies in Maven, I can't just alter the packaging-setting to pom, because it will also prevent the assembly-plugin from adding my classes to the JAR file. It only creates a JAR file with the files of the dependencies.
I hope I'm clear about my problem, and you can help me ;)
if you just looking how to add a file to be deployed you can take a look here:
http://mojo.codehaus.org/build-helper-maven-plugin/attach-artifact-mojo.html
May be this helps. If not express your needs more in detail.
There seems to be no way to configure the deploy plugin to filter out some of the artifacts from a project and selectively deploy the others. Faced with a similar problem, we solved this with the ease-maven-plugin. It fit well into our release process but might not be the right choice for everyone as it mandates a two-step approach. During the build you would make a list of all artifacts and filter out those that you want deployed. In a second step, you then run mvn deploy on a separate project (or separate profile) in which the list of artifacts is attached to the project as the only artifacts which then get deployed. See the examples in the source code of the ease maven plugin to better understand how it works.
The original version is not able to filter out specific artifacts of a project. I have forked the project and added patches that add this.
What is the difference between a Full Build, an Incremental Build and Deploy within Powerbuilder? The only difference I can see is that Deploy allows you to update the PBDs for, well, deployment.
Full Build regenerates every object. Incremental Build regenerates changed objects and objects that reference changed objects. (Reality is that incremental is a little more complex than that, but that is the intended idea.) Deploy launches whichever project is selected in the properties for the target, so it can do an incremental or full build, depending on what is defined in the project, plus generate whatever executables are defined by the project.
Good luck,
Terry.
I set my projects to Full build. It seems to be more reliable than incremental. Full build is very fast even on LARGE projects anyways. There is not a lot of time savings using incremental build.
Deploy is used when you want to build the project AND run it immediately after the build.