I like Nant very much. I do a lot of scripting with NAnt. It is a great little tool.
Since NAnt is pre 1.0, when problems occur, I often think if that it is a problem with NAnt itself, but this is not always the case.
One funny example: After running the oracle scripts I parsed the log output to make sure there was no problem. I was testing this with a small log file and it was fine.
I used the task to load the file contents to a string property and used a regex to search for errors.
When I used this script for a large log file, I stopped getting the "build failed" message at the bottom, because I was printing the error messages.
Because the "build failed" was hiding at the top, I thought NAnt crashed, but it worked fine.
It would be better for NAnt to have a 1.0 release. Any reasons why not?
NAnt is an open source project that has been around a long while and is quite stable. While they have their reasons for not calling it version "1", does the version number really matter that much in this case? It's just a label.
I'd contact the team and find out what needs to be done before they label it as such and perhaps you can contribute some bug fixes etc...
The nice thing about the source being open is if you find a bug, you can fix it yourself. Hence the risk of it not being 1.0 is mitigated slightly if you're willing to invest a bit of time.
Not sure if it matters... See the official blog - NAnt’s not dead, it was just resting
https://sourceforge.net/apps/wordpress/nant/2010/04/05/nants-not-dead-it-was-just-resting/
Open Source projects tend to use more "modest" versions than commercial products which tend to be more marketing driven. A good example of the difference is the Java versioning scheme which went from 1.0 to 1.4 and then by the time it got to version 1.5 it flipped to using version 5 (though 1.5 is the internal name).
Related
We use gradle as our build tool and use the idea plugin to be able to generate the project/module files. The process for a new developer on the project would look like this:
pull from source control.
run 'gradle idea'.
open idea and be able to develop without any further setup.
This all works nicely, but generally only gets exercised when a new developer joins or someone gets a new machine. I would really like to automate the testing of this more frequently in the same way we automate our unit/integration tests as part of our continuous integration process.
Does anyone know if this is possible and if there is any libraries for doing this kind of thing?
You can also substitue idea for eclipse as we have a similar process for those that prefer using eclipse.
The second step (with or without step one) is easy to smoke test (just execute the task as part of a CI build), the third one less so. However, if you are following best practices and regenerate IDEA files rather than committing them to source control, developers will likely perform both steps more or less regularly (e.g. every time a dependency changes).
As Peter noted, the real challenge is step #3. The first 2 ones are solved by your SCM plugin and gradle task. You could try automating the last task by doing something like this
identify the proper command line option, on your platform, that opens a specified intellij project from the command line
find a simple good enough scenario that could validate that the generated project is working as it should. E.g. make a clean then build. Make sure you can reproduce these steps using keyboard shortcuts only. Validation could be made by validating either produced artifacts or test result reports, etc
use an external library, like Robot, to program the starting of intellij and the running of your keyboards. Here's a simple example with Robot. Use a dynamic language with inbuilt console instead of pure Java for that, it will speed your scripting a lot...
Another idea would be to include a daemon plugin in intellij to pass back the commands from external CLI. Otherwise take contact with the intellij team, they may have something to ease your work here.
Notes:
beware of false negatives: any failure could be caused by external issues, like project instability. Try to make sure you only build from a validated working project...
beware of false positives: any assumption / unchecked result code could hide issues. Make sure you clean properly the workspace, installation, to have a repeatable state and standard scenario matching first use.
Final thoughts: while interesting from a theoretical angle, this automation exercise may not bring all the required results, i.e. the validation of the platform. Still it's an interesting learning experience and could serve as a material for a nice short talk, especially if you find out interesting stuff. Make it a beer challenger with your team when you have a few idle hours to try to see who can implement the fastest a working solution ;) Good luck!
Putting development tools (compilers, IDEs, editors, ...) and runtime environments (jre, .net framework, interpreters, ...) under the version control has a couple of nice reasons. First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository. You don't have to have anything else. Second, the triple is surely version compatible as you once tested it. However, it has its own drawbacks. The main one is the big volume of large binary files that must be put under version control system. That may cause the VCS slower and the backup process harder. What's your idea?
Tools and dependencies actually used to compile and build the project, absolutely - it is very useful if you ever have to debug an issue or develop a fix for an older version and you've moved on to newer versions that aren't quite compatible with the old ones.
IDE's & editors no - ideally you're project should be buildable from a script so these would not be necessary. The generated output should still be the same regardless of what you used to edit the source.
I include a text (and thus easily diff-able) file in every project root called "How-to-get-this-project-running" that includes any and all things necessary, including the correct .net version and service packs.
Also for proprietry IDE's (e.g. Visual Studio), there can be licensing issues as this makes it difficult to manage who is using which pieces of software.
Edit:
We also used to store batch files that automatically checked out the source code automatically (and all dependencies) in source control. Developers just check out the "Setup" folder and run the batch scripts, instead of having to search the repository for appropriate bits and pieces.
What I find is very nice and common (in .Net projects I have experience with anyway) is including any "non-default install" dependencies in a lib or dependencies folder with source control. The runtime is provided by the GAC and kind of assumed.
First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository.
Not true: it often isn't enough to just get/copy/check out a tool, instead the tool must also be installed on the workstation.
Personally I've seen libraries and 3rd-party components in the source version control system, but not the tools.
I keep all dependencies in a folder under source control named "3rdParty". I agree that this is very convinient and you can just pull down the source and get going. This really shouldnt affect the performance of the source control.
The only real draw back is that the initial size to pull down can be fairly large. In my situation anyone who pulls downt he code usually will run it also, so it is ok. But if you expect many people to pull down the source just to read then this can be annoying.
I've seen this done in more than one place where I worked. In all cases, I've found it to be pretty convenient.
I have following question :
what are advantages and disadvantages in running nunit-console with /noshadow option?
Your comments will be very helpful
Thanks
The main issue I've found with /noshadow is that it stops your project from building as NUnit is now forced to use and lock your DLL. If you leave this option disabled, then NUnit creates a copy of your DLL.
If you are trying to practice TDD and are constantly building the project in the Red, Green, Refactor cycle, then you can't easily use /noshadow. You will get an error message like:
The process cannot access the file 'bin\Debug\calculator.dll' because it is being used by another process.
There are probably ways around this, but that's the main problem I've found.
As for when you would use this: I think the main reason is to speed up performance, but as most true unit tests run really quickly, I'm not sure when you would really need this. I'm sure other people will come up with some good examples.
If you happen to rely on anything that uses a file location in your tests, say for some curious assembly loading process, or just something as simple as Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location, then you're likely to hit problems because NUnit has copied your file to some other location than the build location.
I'd say that typically these problems can be avoided though -- especially if you avoid touching the filesystem in your unit tests.
A quick warning, the gradle plugin for Nunit has changed how to specify shadow options. Took me a while to find this so posting here in case it can help someone else.
noShadow is replaced by shadowCopy and defaults to false, that is, the name has changed and the sense/direction of it is the opposite. This was done apparently to match more closely what Nunit 3 does. You can read details about this in the plugin changlog at https://github.com/Ullink/gradle-nunit-plugin/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md
Almost any IDE creates lots of files that have nothing to do with the application being developed, they are generated and mantained by the IDE so he knows how to build the application, where the version control repository is and so on.
Should those files be kept under version control along with the files that really have something to do with the aplication (source code, application's configuration files, ...)?
The things is: on some IDEs if you create a new project and then import it into the version-control repository using the version-control client/commands embedded in the IDE, then all those files are sent to the respitory. And I'm not sure that's right: what is two different developers working on the same project want to use two different IDEs?
I want to keep this question agnostic avoiding references to any particular IDE, programming language or version control system. So this question is not exactly the same as these:
SVN and binaries - but this talks about binaries and SVN
Do you keep your build tools in version control? - but this talks about build tools (e.g. putting the jdk under version control)
What project files shouldn’t be checked into SVN - but this talks about SVN and dll's
Do you keep your project files under version control? - very similar (haven't found it before), thanks VonC
Rules of thumb:
Include everything which has an influence on the build result (compiler options, file encodings, ASCII/binary settings, etc.)
Include everything to make it possible to open the project from a clean checkout and being able to compile/run/test/debug/deploy it without any further manual intervention
Don't include files which contain absolute paths
Avoid including personal preferences (tab size, colors, window positions)
Follow the rules in this order.
[Update] There is always the question what should happen with generated code. As a rule of thumb, I always put those under version control. As always, take this rule with a grain of salt.
My reasons:
Versioning generated code seems like a waste of time. It's generated right? I can get it back at a push of a button!
Really?
If you had to bite the bullet and generate the exact same version of some previous release without fail, how much effort would it be? When generating code, you not only have to get all the input files right, you also have to turn back time for the code generator itself. Can you do that? Always? As easy as it would be to check out a certain version of the generated code if you had put it under version control?
And even if you could, could you ever be sure that didn't miss something?
So on one hand, putting generated code under version control make sense since it makes it dead easy to do what VCS are meant for: Go back in time.
Also it makes it easy to see the differences. Code generators are buggy, too. If I fix a bug and have 150'000 files generated, it helps a lot when I can compare them to the previous version to see that a) the bug is gone and b) nothing else changed unexpectedly. It's the unexpected part which you should worry about. If you don't, let me know and I'll make sure you never work for my company ever :-)
The major pain point of code generators is stability. It doesn't do when your code generator just spits out a random mess of bytes every time you run (well, unless you don't care about quality). Code generators need to be stable and deterministic. You run them twice with the same input and the output must be identical down to least significant bit.
So if you can't check in generated code because every run of the generator creates differences that aren't there, then your code generator has a bug. Fix it. Sort the code when you have to. Use hash maps that preserve order. Do everything necessary to make the output non-random. Just like you do everywhere else in your code.
Generated code that I might not put under version control would be documentation. Documentation is somewhat of a soft target. It doesn't matter as much when I regenerate the wrong version of the docs (say, it has a few typos more or less). But for releases, I might do that anyway so I can see the differences between releases. Might be useful, for example, to make sure the release notes are complete.
I also don't check in JAR files. As I do have full control over the whole build and full confidence that I can get back any version of the sources in a minute plus I know that I have everything necessary to build it without any further manual intervention, why would I need the executables for? Again, it might make sense to put them into a special release repo but then, better keep a copy of the last three years on your company's web server to download. Think: Comparing binaries is hard and doesn't tell you much.
I think it's best to put anything under version control that helps developers to get started quickly, ignoring anything that may be auto-generated by an IDE or build tools (e.g. Maven's eclipse plugin generates .project and .classpath - no need to check these in). Especially avoid files that change often, that contain nothing but user preferences, or that conflict between IDEs (e.g. another IDE that uses .project just like eclipse does).
For eclipse users, I find it especially handy to add code style (.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs - auto formatting on save turned on) to get consistently formatted code.
Everything that can be automatically generated from the source+configuration files should not be under the version control! It only causes problems and limitations (like the one you stated - using 2 different project files by different programmers).
Its true not only for IDE "junk files" but also for intermediate files (like .pyc in python, .o in c etc).
This is where build automation and build files come in.
For example, you can still build the project (the two developers will need the same build software obviously) but they then could in turn use two different IDE's.
As for the 'junk' that gets generated, I tend to ignore most if it. I know this is meant to be language agnostic but consider Visual Studio. It generates user files (user settings etc..) this should not be under source control.
On the other hand, project files (used by the build process) most certainly should. I should add that if you are on a team and have all agreed on an IDE, then checking in IDE specific files is fine providing they are global and not user specific and/or not needed.
Those other questions do a good job of explaining what should and shouldn't be checked into source control so I wont repeat them.
In my opinion it depends on the project and environment. In a company environment where everybody is using the same IDE it can make sense to add the IDE files to the repository. While this depends a bit on the IDE, as some include absolute paths to things.
For a project which is developed in different environments it doesn't make sense and will be pain in the long run as the project files aren't maintained by all developers and make it harder to find "relevant" things.
Anything that would be devastating if it were lost, should be under version control.
In my opinion, anything needed to build the project (code, make files, media, databases with required program info, etc) should be in repositories. I realise that especially for media/database files this is contriversial, but to me if you can't branch and then hit build the source control's not doing it's job. This goes double for distributed systems with cheap branch creation/merging.
Anything else? Store it somewhere different. Developers should choose their own working environment as much as possible.
From what I have been looking at with version control, it seems that most things should go into it - e.g. source code and so on. However, the problem that many VCS's run into is when trying to handle large files, typically binaries, and at times things like audio and graphic files. Therefore, my personal way to do it is to put the source code under version control, along with general small sized graphics, and leave any binaries to other systems of management. If it is a binary that I created myself using the build system of the IDE, then that can definitily be ignored, because it is going to be regenerated every build. For dependancy libraries, well this is where dependancy package managers come in.
As for IDE generated files (I am assuming these are ones that aren't generated during the build process, such as the solution files for Visual Studio) - well, I think it would depend on whether or not you are working alone. If you are working alone, then go ahead and add them - they will allow you to revert settings in the solution or whatever you make. Same goes for other non-solution like files as well. However, if you are collaborating, then my recomendation is no - most IDE generated files tend to be, well, user specific - aka they work on your machine, but not neccesarily on others. Hence, you may be better of not including IDE generated files in that case.
tl;dr you should put most things that relate to your program into version control, excluding dependencies (things like libraries, graphics and audio should be handled by some other dependancy management system). As for things directly generated by the IDE - well, it would depend on if you are working alone or with other people.
I've used the MIT Continuous testing plugin in the past, but it has long since passed out of date and is no longer compatible with anything approaching a modern release of Eclipse.
Does anyone have a good replacement? Free, naturally, is preferred.
I found that Infinitest now has an Eclipse plugin that seems to work pretty well.
There is a list in this Ben Rady article at Object Mentor: Continuous Testing Explained. Unfortunately the only Eclipse tool appears to be CT-Eclipse which is not currently maintained either.
There is also Fireworks for IntelliJ and Infinitest which is not IDE specific but also has some IntelliJ integration.
My experience is that continuous testing within the IDE can become unwieldy and distracting, so I prefer to use something like CruiseControl to do this kind of testing. One tool I have found very useful is EclEmma, which gives you a very fast coverage turnaround for your units, helping you to decide when you have finished testing a particular area of the code.
Infinitest decides what tests it wants to run. Often it runs the wrong ones. Green bar sometimes good, sometimes meaningless.
I've had good experience with infinitest on a small and simple project. I've not run into any issues with it and find it fast and helpful.
I also use Infinitest (and voted for one of its answers), but I wanted to add another approach, which relies on the build server. Whenever you want to implement something, create a branch in your VCS, do your changes, commit to your branch. If you have a build server configured, which runs unit tests on every checkin, your unit tests are then run on the build server without actually having polluted the trunk (or HEAD, whatever you call it) and without you waiting for the test run to finish.
I admit that this is not really continuous unit testing in the sense you asked the question, but for large projects or large test suites even a "normal" continuous test runner may slow you down way to much.
For small projects I also recommend Infinitest or CT Eclipse.