Note: this is not a dupe of this or this other question. Read on: this question is specific to the Code-Sharing template.
I am doing some pretty basic experiments with NativeScript, Angular and the code sharing templates (see: #nativescript/schematics).
Now I am doing some exploration / poc work on how different "build configuration" are supported by the framework. To be clear, I am searching for a simple -and hopefully official- way to have the application use a different version of a specific file (let's call it configuration.ts) based on the current platform (web/ios/android) and environment (development/production/staging?).
Doing the first part is obviously trivial - after all that is the prime purpose of the code sharing schematics. So, different versions of the same file are identified by different extensions. This page explain things pretty simply.
What I don't get as easily is if the framework/template supports any similar convention-based rule that can be used to switch between debug/release (or even better development/staging/production) versions of a file. Think for example of a config.ts file that contains different parameters based on the environment.
I have done some research in the topic, but I was unable to find a conclusive answer:
the old and now retired documentation for the appbuilder platform mentions a (.debug. and .release.) naming convention for files. I don't think this work anymore.
other sources mention passing parameters during the call to tns build / tns run and then fetching them via webpack env variable... See here. This may work, but seems oddly convoluted
third option that gets mentioned is to use hooks to customize the build (or use a plugin that should do the same)
lastly, for some odd reason, the #nativescript/schematics seems to generate a default project that contains two files called environment.ts and environment.prod.ts. I suspect those only work for the web version of the project (read: ng serve) - I wasn't able to get the mobile compiler to recognize files that end with debug.ts, prod.ts or release.ts
While it may be possible that what I am trying to do isn't just supported (yet?), the general confusion an dissenting opinions on the matter make me think I may be missing something.. somewhere.
In case this IS somehow supported, I also wonder how it may integrate with the NativeScript Sidekick app that is often suggested as a tool to ease the build/run process of NativeScript applications (there is no way to specify additional parameters for the tns commands that the Sidekick automates, the only options available are switching between debug/release mode), but this is probably better to be left for another question.
Environment files are not yet supported, passing environment variables from build command could be the viable solution for now.
But of course, you may write your own schematics if you like immediate support for environment files.
I did not look into sharing environment files between web and mobile yet - I do like Manoj's suggestion regarding modifying the schematics, but I'll have to cross that bridge when I get there I guess. I might have an answer to your second question regarding Sidekick. The latest version does support "Webpack" build option which seems to pass the --bundle parameter to tns. The caveat is that this option seems to be more sensitive to typescript errors, even relatively benign ones, so you have to be careful and make sure to fix them all prior to building. In my case I had to lock the version of #types/jasmine in package.json to "2.8.6" in order to avoid some incompatibility between that and the version of typescript that Sidekick's cloud solution is using. Another hint is to check "Clean Build" after npm dependency changes are made. Good luck!
Why is changing lines in configuration file considered an anti-pattern in Chef or Puppet?
It's something like bad habit, as I understood. I assume that this file-editing is done in some idempotent way and with advanced tools (augeas for example).
Why is deploying the whole files, with ERB templates, considered a preferred method?
You can find a lot of examples where dev-ops are suggesting usage of templates instead of file-editing. For example here, here, here, etc.
Actually there is a large part of the DevOps community that sees accepting system/package defaults for config files and only modifying what you need through augeas as the preferred method, Github devops would be one of them(if you happened to catch them at Puppet Conf 2012).
I think having a default pattern of always using templates creates too high of a maintenance load and almost always requires you lock in specific versions for everything across your stack or you risk having an incompatible template against a newer version of that resource.
There's use cases for both options but in general I favor the "own as little as possible" practice vs the "own everything even if you don't have to" practice.
In terms of setting the your system to a known state, deploying whole files is better than editing, because you are sure the file is exactly as intended when you are done.
If you are tinkering around finding potential solutions to a problem and hand edit some configuration file, you don't have to worry about the hand edit you made staying around as an uncontrolled part of your environment. The next time you run chef-client, you know that the state will be exactly as specified in the Chef recipe, and won't include your edit.
Also, it is just in general harder and more complicated to robustly edit a file than it is to just generate one. You might write something that is idempotent in the basic case, but if the file contains a syntax error or something invalid, than your editing no longer works.
As always though, sometimes you don't have a choice, and editing is the only way to go.
It would be nice to have a more or less complete list over what files and/or directories that shouldn't (in most cases) be under source control. What do you think should be excluded?
Suggestion so far:
In general
Config files with sensitive information (passwords, private keys etc.)
Thumbs.db, .DS_Store and desktop.ini
Editor backups: *~ (emacs)
Generated files (for instance DoxyGen output)
C#
bin\*
obj\*
*.exe
Visual Studio
*.suo
*.ncb
*.user
*.aps
*.cachefile
*.backup
_UpgradeReport_Files
Java
*.class
Eclipse
I don't know, and this is what I'm looking for right now :-)
Python
*.pyc
Temporary files
- .*.sw?
- *~
Anything that is generated. Binary, bytecode, code/documents generated from XML.
From my commenters, exclude:
Anything generated by the build, including code documentations (doxygen, javadoc, pydoc, etc.)
But include:
3rd party libraries that you don't have the source for OR don't build.
FWIW, at my work for a very large project, we have the following under ClearCase:
All original code
Qt source AND built debug/release
(Terribly outdated) specs
We do not have built modules for our software. A complete binary is distributed every couple weeks with the latest updates.
OS specific files, generated by their file browsers such as
Thumbs.db and .DS_Store
Some other Visual Studio typical files/folders are
*.cachefile
*.backup
_UpgradeReport_Files
My tortoise global ignore pattern for example looks like this
bin obj *.suo *.user *.cachefile *.backup _UpgradeReport_Files
files that get built should not be checked in
I would approach the problem a different way; what things should be included in source control? You should only source control those files that:
( need revision history OR are created outside of your build but are part of the build, install, or media ) AND
can't be generated by the build process you control AND
are common to all users that build the product (no user config)
The list includes things like:
source files
make, project, and solution files
other build tool configuration files (not user related)
3rd party libraries
pre-built files that go on the media like PDFs & documents
documentation
images, videos, sounds
description files like WSDL, XSL
Sometimes a build output can be a build input. For example, an obfuscation rename file may be an output and an input to keep the same renaming scheme. In this case, use the checked-in file as the build input and put the output in a different file. After the build, check out the input file and copy the output file into it and check it in.
The problem with using an exclusion list is that you will never know all the right exclusions and might end up source controlling something that shouldn't be source controlled.
Like Corey D has said anything that is generated, specifically anything that is generated by the build process and development environment are good candidates. For instance:
Binaries and installers
Bytecode and archives
Documents generated from XML and code
Code generated by templates and code generators
IDE settings files
Backup files generated by your IDE or editor
Some exceptions to the above could be:
Images and video
Third party libraries
Team specific IDE settings files
Take third party libraries, if you need to ship or your build depends on a third party library it wouldn't be unreasonable to put it under source control, especially if you don't have the source. Also consider some source control systems aren't very efficient at storing binary blobs and you probably will not be able to take advantage of the systems diff tools for those files.
Paul also makes a great comment about generated files and you should check out his answer:
Basically, if you can't reasonably
expect a developer to have the exact
version of the exact tool they need,
there is a case for putting the
generated files in version control.
With all that being said ultimately you'll need to consider what you put under source control on a case by case basis. Defining a hard list of what and what not to put under it will only work for some and only probably for so long. And of course the more files you add to source control the longer it will take to update your working copy.
Anything that can be generated by the IDE, build process or binary executable process.
An exception:
4 or 5 different answers have said that generated files should not go under source control. Thats not quite true.
Files generated by specialist tools may belong in source control, especially if particular versions of those tools are necessary.
Examples:
parsers generated by bison/yacc/antlr,
autotools files such as configure or Makefile.in, created by autoconf, automake, libtool etc,
translation or localization files,
files may be generated by expensive tools, and it might be cheaper to only install them on a few machines.
Basically, if you can't reasonably expect a developer to have the exact version of the exact tool they need, there is a case for putting the generated files in version control.
This exception is discussed by the svn guys in their best practices talk.
Temp files from editors.
.*.sw?
*~
etc.
desktop.ini is another windows file I've seen sneak in.
Config files that contain passwords or any other sensitive information.
Actual config files such a web.config in asp.net because people can have different settings. Usually the way I handle this is by having a web.config.template that is on SVN. People get it, make the changes they want and rename it as web.config.
Aside from this and what you said, be careful of sensitive files containing passwords (for instance).
Avoid all the annoying files generated by Windows (thumb) or Mac OS (.ds_store)
*.bak produced by WinMerge.
additionally:
Visual Studio
*.ncb
The best way I've found to think about it is as follows:
Pretend you've got a brand-new, store-bought computer. You install the OS and updates; you install all your development tools including the source control client; you create an empty directory to be the root of your local sources; you do a "get latest" or whatever your source control system calls it to fetch out clean copies of the release you want to build; you then run the build (fetched from source control), and everything builds.
This thought process tells you why certain files have to be in source control: all of those necessary for the build to work on a clean system. This includes .designer.cs files, the outputs of T4 templates, and any other artifact that the build will not create.
Temp files, config for anything other than global development and sensitive information
Things that don't go into source control come in 3 classes
Things totally unrelated to the project (obviously)
Things that can be found on installation media, and are never changed (eg: 3rd-party APIs).
Things that can be mechanically generated, via your build process, from things that are in source control (or from things in class 2).
Whatever the language :
cache files
generally, imported files should not either (like images uploaded by users, on a web application)
temporary files ; even the ones generated by your OS (like thumbs.db under windows) or IDE
config files with passwords ? Depends on who has access to the repository
And for those who don't know about it : svn:ignore is great!
If you have a runtime environment for your code (e.g. dependency libraries, specific compiler versions etc.) do not put the packages into the source control. My approach is brutal, but effective. I commit a makefile, whose role is to downloads (via wget) the stuff, unpack it, and build my runtime environment.
I have a particular .c file that does not go in source control.
The rule is nothing in source control that is generated during the build process.
The only known exception is if a tool requires an older version of itself to build (bootstrap problem). In that case you will need a known good bootstrap copy in source control so you can build from blank.
Going out on a limb here, but I believe that if you use task lists in Visual Studio, they are kept in the .suo file. This may not be a reason to keep them in source control, but it is a reason to keep a backup somewhere, just in case...
A lot of time has passed since this question was asked, and I think a lot of the answers, while relevant, don't have hard details on .gitignore on a per language or IDE level.
Github came out with a very useful, community collaborated list of .gitignore files for all sorts of projects and IDEs that is worth taking a look.
Here's a link to that git repo: https://github.com/github/gitignore
To answer the question, here are the related examples for:
C# -> see Visual Studio
Visual Studio
Java
Eclipse
Python
There are also OS-specific .gitignore files. Following:
Windows
OS X
Linux
So, assuming you're running Windows and using Eclipse, you can just concatenate Eclipse.gitignore and Windows.gitignore to a .gitignore file in the top level directory of your project. Very nifty stuff.
Don't forget to add the .gitignore to your repo and commit it!
Chances are, your IDE already handles this for you. Visual Studio does anyway.
And for the .gitignore files, If you see any files or patterns missing in a particular .gitignore, you can open a PR on that file with the proposed change. Take a look at the commit and pull request trackers for ideas.
I am always using www.gitignore.io to generate a proper one .ignore file.
Opinion: everything can be in source control, if you need to, unless it brings significant repository overhead such as frequently changing or large blobs.
3rd party binaries, hard-to-generate (in terms of time) generated files to speed up your deployment process, all are ok.
The main purpose of source control is to match one coherent system state to a revision number. If it would be possible, I'd freeze the entire universe with the code - build tools and the target operating system.
I'm using Mercurial for personal use and am conteplating it for some distributed projects as an alternative to SVN for various reasons.
I'm getting comfortable with using it for self contained projects and can see various options for sharing however I haven't yet found any guidance on managing common libraries to be included in multiple projects in a similar manner to that provided by externals in subversion.
The most obvious shared lump of code is error handling and reporting - we want this to be pretty much the same in all projects (its fairly well evolved). There is also utility code, control libraries and similar that we find better to have as projects built with each solution than to pull in as compiled classes (not least because it ensures they are kept up to date, continuous integration helps us address breaking changes).
Thoughts (I hate open ended questions, but I want to know what, if anything, others are doing).
Mercurial 1.3 now includes nested repository support, which can be used to express dependencies. The other option is to let your build system handle the download and tracking of dependencies using something like ivy or maven though those are more focused on pulling down compiled code.
The world has changed since I asked that question and the solution I now use is different.
The simple answer is now to use packages (specifically NuGet as I do .NET) to deliver the common code instead of nesting repos and including the projects in a solution.
So I have common code built into NuGet packages by and hosted using TeamCity and where previously I would have an external and include the project/source I would now just reference the package.
Use the Forest Extension it emulates svn externals for HG, to some extent that is.
Subrepository (with good guide) or Guestrepo "to overcome ... limitations" (of subrepos) is today's language-agnostic answer
I am currently working on automating/improving the release process for packaging my shop's entire product. Currently the product is a combination of:
Java server-side codebase
XML configuration and application files
Shell and batch scripts for administrators
Statically served HTML pages
and some other stuff, but that's most of it
All or most of which have various versioning information contained in them, used for varying purposes. Part of the release packaging process involves doing a lot of finding, grep'ing and sed'ing (in scripts) to update the information. This glue that packages the product seems to have been cobbled together in an organic, just-in-time manner, and is pretty horrible to maintain. For example, some Java methods create Date objects for the time of release, the arguments for which are updated by a textual replacement, without compiler validation... just, urgh.
I'm trying avoid giving examples of actual software used (i.e. CVS, SVN, ant, etc.) because I'd like to avoid the "use xyz's feature to do this" and concentrate more on general practices. I'd like to blame shoddy design for the problem, but if I had to start again, still using varying technologies, I'd be unsure how best to go about handling this, beyond laying down conventions.
My questions is, are there any best practices or hints and tips for maintaining and updating versioning information across different technologies, filetypes, platforms and version control systems?
Create a properties file that contains the version number and have all of the different components reference the properties file
Java files can reference the properties through
XML can use includes?
HTML can use a JavaScript to write the version number from the properties in the HTML
Shell scripts can read in the file
Indeed, to complete Craig Angus's answer, the rule of thumb here should be to not include any meta-informations in your normal delivery files, but to report those meta-data (version number, release date, and so on) into one special file -- included in the release --.
That helps when you use one VCS (Version Control System) tool from the development to homologation to pre-production.
That means whenever you load a workspace (either for developing, or for testing or for preparing a release into production), it is the versionning tool which gives you all the details.
When you prepare a delivery (a set of packaged files), you should ask that VCS tool about every meta-information you want to keep, and write them in a special file itself included into the said set of files.
That delivery should be packaged in an external directory (outside any workspace) and:
copied to a shared directory (or a maven repository) if it is a non-official release (but just a quick packaging for helping the team next door who is waiting for your delivery). That way you can make 10 or 20 delivers a day, it does not matter: they are easily disposable.
imported into the VCS in order to serve as official deliveries, and in order to be deployed easily since all you need is to ask the versionning tool for the right version of the right deliver, and you can begin to deploy it.
Note: I just described a release management process mostly used for many inter-dependant projects. For one small single project, you can skip the import in the VCS tool and store your deliveries elsewhere.
In addition to Craig Angus' ones include the version of tools used.