Disclaimer: I am relatively unfamiliar with the flash build processes, so some/all of this may be misinformed nonsense. Please feel free to suggest alternative approaches.
We're currently developing a flex web app and our build situation is far from ideal. At present we're (as in individual developers) just building using FlashBuilder and deploying manually. The programmers are currently screaming bloody murder for two reasons, though:
The lack of CI is like going back to the stone age
We don't much care for FlashBuilder
(Note: We're only using FlashBuilder because it was the easiest way to set up a flex project in conjunction with Away3d and get it building / rendering correctly -- it's a stopgap solution).
As a predominately .NET development shop, we're used to doing continuous integration as well as continuous deployment. Ideally, we'd like to get something comparable to this for our flash projects without tying ourselves to a particular IDE.
Requirements:
The build process must be:
.. runnable via the commandline
.. runnable on both developer and CI build machines (and certainly not requiring an IDE!)
.. preferably as IDE-independent as possible (pragmatism will kick in though; if this causes a lot of friction we'll just pick one).
.. able to run on Windows (we develop using Windows)
We don't mind a touch of duplication or a few manual steps (e.g. tarting up the build scripts if we add a new project via an IDE, or generating one configuration from another if tools exist), but the less duplication / maintenance required the better.
I've read quite a few articles / blog posts and watched some short screencasts, but most of them are very thin on the ground on how the build system sits alongside IDEs. Most articles/screencasts have the same formula: How to create a "Hello World" build using a single file & text editors (no IDE).
I've not seen the topic of multiple libraries/projects etc. being broached, either.
After reading around the issue for a while, I'm considering investigating the following options:
Project Sprouts
Flexmojos
Maven Flex Plugin
buildr as3
Does anyone have any experience of the above solutions (or others I'm unaware of) and, if so, what do you make of them? Any help / pointers appreciated.
I recently started building with Gradle and the GradleFx plugin and I immediately fell in love with its power and ease of use.
Gradle is ANT + Maven + Ivy evolved and is primarily used from the command-line. You can:
write scripts in Groovy (a powerful Ruby-like language that runs in the Java Virtual Machine)
access all existing Maven and Ivy repositories as well as your own repos
use existing ANT tasks
integrate with CI (in Jenkins you just tick a checkbox to activate Gradle support)
although it has originally grown from the Java/Groovy community, it is in fact language agnostic. You add language-specific plugins for added functionality. GradleFx is such a plugin that provides you with additional ActionScript/Flex building tasks.
do easy multi-project builds. e.g. you can compile, unit test, package and deploy both your .NET service layer and your Flex client application with just one command.
use convention over configuration: if you stick to the conventions, your build scripts will be extremely terse
generate all kinds of reports: unit testing, checkstyles, codenarc, ...
generate Eclipse, IDEA or other IDE projects
all the things I haven't discovered yet
And best of all: it's very easy to learn. I had no knowledge of Maven before I started with Gradle and could get a multi-project build with some customizations working quite quickly.
Edit (comparison to Buildr AS3 and Maven)
I can compare this only to one of the projects you mentioned: Buildr AS3. It seems to start from a philosophy that is similar to Gradle's. But I've tried to use it about half a year ago and couldn't even get a simple 'Hello World' app to work. I e-mailed the developer for help: no response.
Compared to GradleFx: I had a small forum discussion with the developer (on a rather philosophical topic, since I didn't really need any help because it just worked right away). He answered within minutes.
As for Maven: (for what it's worth) I've only glanced at some configurations and they seem overly complicated when I compare them to a Gradle script.
There is one thing Maven does that you can't do with GradleFx (yet). It can pull the right Flex SDK from a Maven repo and build against that. With GradleFx you have to have your SDK's available locally.
I'm quite familiar with using maven as the main build tool and the flexmojos plugin from Sonatype. My experience has been a bit of a roller coaster with flexmojos. Maven is completely solid, it works all the time without issue, the only issue is the flexmojos plugin which has fluctuated a lot between versions. If you choose to go this route make sure to grab the source for flexmojos so you can see what your configuration options are actually doing to the command line parameters etc. For Flex 3.x flexmojos 3.x up to around 3.9 is good and works fine with regard to the goal for generating the .project eclipse files, believe there's also a mojo (a maven plugin) for generating intelliJ IDEA project files as well as others. If you're using Flex 4 you can compile with the latest flexmojos 4.0RC2 but it appears to me that the goal for generating flex/flashbuilder project properties is now gone (I'm not sure if this is because it's been replaced by another plugin altogether or what the deal is). However building with maven and flexmojos does fulfill all of your goals above (we also use it for building our service layer, so in a single mvn clean install we get a jar packed in a war packed in an ear with everything configured and a swf, that part is really nice). Also you can do continuous integration using bamboo (or simply write your own script that is triggered from a cron job or in windows as a batch file executed with a scheduled task if you don't have a *nix server around). Let me know if you'd like any more details or if I missed something major.
Shaun
I have been using Hudson, now Jenkins, with Ant for Flex automated builds and FlexUnit testing. Jenkins has some really useful plugins for integration with eclipse (and hence, FDT or FlashBuilder), Jira, SVN, Git etc., and it's free. Also, you can integrate the Ant build into Maven scripts, so I've found this to be a good and flexible solution for all purposes I've come across so far.
The Flex SDK comes with Ant tasks, and writing even elaborate Ant build scripts is quite easy - in fact, I'd been using Ant locally before, and I could reuse my existing scripts with only a few added extra compiler options for FlexUnit tasks.
However, it took a while to set up the system correctly for unit testing, because I'm running a headless server on Linux, and that implicates a rather complicated environment for ActionScript tests, because they run only in Flash Player. This, of course, is true for all CI scenarios using FlexUnit, regardless of which server you use.
Here's what I've learned:
FlexUnit needs a standalone debugger version of Flash Player installed, but Adobe only distributes binaries for the standard version on Linux. Therefore, compiling from source was necessary, and since my server system is stripped down to the bare necessities, it took some effort to install all the correct dependencies and get them to work.
The Flash Player needs hardware to run correctly: It uses graphics, therefore it needs a graphics card, and sounds, therefore it needs a sound card. On my headless server, this meant I had to install a VNC host to get it to run at all, and I had to eliminate any tests using sounds (those will now only run on local machines). If anyone ever comes across a working sound card emulation for openSuSE that I could use with the VNC client - you'll be my hero forever!
If you've set asynchronous timeouts in your unit tests, and/or you need to use setTimeout() to send delayed procedure calls, make sure the intervals aren't too short - I've had problems with tests that ran fine on any local machine, but broke the build on the CI server, because the Flash Player is considerably slower on the VNC client than on an actual graphics card.
I've also found this last issue to be a healthy lesson: Criteria for unit tests should not be based on assumptions about the system's performance, or at least be tolerant enough to succeed even on a slow machine.
Related
I am at the point where I am running into incredibly long build times for my project and more projects to come. I would like to make a build server but I have not had any experience with them aside from downloading files from them as an end user.
My ideal setup is this: A GitHub where I can place my .fla file, classes and ANEs. The server sees this, compiles it, and allows me to test it remotely or hook into some debugger that lets me see stack traces and active variables at breakpoints and errors like Adobe Animate or Flash Builder.
Now I see there are GitHub plugins for Jenkins. I see there are questions referring to how to set one up with Flex/AIR. I come here with a few issues.
I am too far into my project to switch over from using Animate to something like Flash Develop or anything ADT related. The only thing I have found is how to take existing elements from my library in Animate and have them in a .swc for handling. However, this doesn't let me access existing elements in the Timeline and would rather not try to export/position/handle them in code (which is the only workaround that I see if this is not possible)
I run ANEs that are dependent on Google Play services and other Android specific libraries. Thus, I haven't been able to use the standard mobile debug launcher for AIR. I see Jenkins has some specific abilities for Android. Is it possible to somehow use this to give me a proper window for testing? I am thinking that I would need to run their emulator after compiling everything but I am unsure if there is a more efficient method or if it would even work.
I have never worked with Jenkins before or any other tools capable of automating tasks. Any step by step explanations is appreciated if you have the time.
The UWP infrastructure seems to have everything what's needed for a portable model.
Clear separation between os and application
Clear separation between different applications
Less dependencies
Support portable class libraries
As far I know portable scenario's are not supported right now. Is it something that we can expect in the future or is it intrinsic impossible due the architecture of UWP/WinRT
How hard would it be to create some kind of host executable that can run any local UWP app. At the moment I'm looking for portability between different Windows 10 PC's. Not so much cross device or cross OS.
I'm aware you can side load UWP apps, but that's not what I'm looking for.
Is it something that we can expect in the future or is it intrinsic impossible due the architecture of UWP/WinRT
I don't see any major technical limitations that would prevent this scenario. UWP apps can register to some global mechanisms (which is something portable apps shouldn't do), like push notifications or background tasks, but the whole application model has been designed so that users can limit access to those features on a per-application basis. So every developer publishing an app is supposed to have considered beforehand that those code-paths may fail.
But "technically possible" doesn't mean that Microsoft will do it. In fact, I seriously doubt they ever will. The reason is simple: they're pushing the store with all their might, even seeking to put Win32 apps on it. Clearly, they're moving towards putting more apps on the store, not the other way around.
As to know whether it'd be possible to make a third-party standalone runner, I think so. When running unit tests for an UWP app, Visual Studio is launching a sort of "shell" hosting the app (it has become very apparent recently because after an update of Windows 10, the API that allowed to hide the splashscreen wasn't working anymore). I don't know what API is used to create this shell, but I'd definitely dig that way if I wanted to make a portable UWP host.
Although I haven't done this myself (will update answer if and when), reading this article makes it look like there is an easy way to create an installer that calls that command.
In short, an appx package can be installed locally using the command:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Kits\10\bin\x86\WinAppDeployCmd.exe
Which can probably be wrapped in a UI or CMD installer.
Here's nice example of it (not mine).
I often find the quote "InstallUtil.exe" is an ugly pattern or "Don't use InstallUtil.exe" and that I should use native WIX or Installation package patterns and I still don't understood why.
I stepped away from using InstallUtil to install a .NET service as I finally learnt that writing registry keys for such an action should be an un-install-able action - and I've come to terms with this as correct.
As I've been working through my WIX installer for a relatively complex product, I have found myself in need of creating or updating SQL Server databases, creating or updating IIS Applications and finally updating or creating configuration files.
Each of my components (features) are optional, but they all share the same configuration file. As my product uses unity, its important to note that this library contains strong support for reading/updating/removing components from the Unity Configuration block, therefore it seems fairly smart to me that I should take advantages of these blocks via Installation Components (i.e. InstallUtil) to create or update my configuration file at installation time.
Just to be clear here, my installer does not natively contain a configuration file for my application: at installation time, the installer has no idea as to the shape of it as its based on the features selected. Surely I should be embedding this knowledge into each of the modules that are to be deployed and not in the remit of the installer which is now a completely independent project? Wouldn't this break O-O principals even if we are talking about installation?
I'd really appreciate some guidance as to whether this is good practise or not? Am I reading 'InstallUtil' is bad for installing services, or is it that using 'InstallUtil' is bad full-stop? If so, what are my options for smart updating of configuration files?
The main reason for avoiding InstallUtil is that it runs outside of the installation transaction, so Windows Installer cannot keep track of what it's done.
I have used InstallUtil on a few occasions, when I just couldn't get Wix to do what I needed and didn't have time to write a custom action. In this case I called the InstallUtilLib version as I feel this is a cleaner approach.
I used the this blog as a guide as to how to achieve this.
I observed that there are 3 plugins that are aiming to provide hudson integration in IntelliJ IDEA.
What is the better one and why?
Hudson Build Monitor seems like the only reliable option where IDEA plugins are concerned. The other available plugins seem to be buggy and perhaps a little over-engineered.
At a basic level HBM works great though I'd prefer it were more project-specific as opposed to monitoring a view or the entire list of Hudson jobs.
I'd like to see a more abstracted build monitor option. Perhaps a Maven plugin that is configured with a CI server facade and references to all the builds for a specific pom file. Then a generic integration within IDEA to poll that facade on a timer to display the status within your project view. This same abstraction could be integrated into the Maven reporting subsystem to document the build history of a specific release through the development cycle.
As usual, plenty of IDEAS and not enough TIME :-)
I need to define a runtime environment for my development. The first idea is of course not to reinvent the wheel. I downloaded macports, used easy_install, tried fink. I always had problems. Right now, for example, I am not able to compile scipy because the MacPorts installer wants to download and install gcc43, but this does not compile on Snow Leopard. A bug is open for this issue, but I am basically tied to them for my runtime to be usable.
A technique I learned some time ago, was to write a makefile to download and build the runtime/libs with clearly specified versions of libraries and utilities. This predates the MacPorts/fink/apt approach, but you have much more control on it, although you have to do everything by hand. Of course, this can become a nightmare on its own if the runtime grows, but if you find a problem, you can use patch and fix the issue on the downloaded package, then build it.
I have multiple questions:
What is your technique to prepare a well-defined runtime/library collection for your development?
Does MacPorts/fink/whatever allows me the same flexibility of rehacking if something goes wrong ?
Considering my makefile solution, when my software is finally out for download, what are your suggestions about solving the potential troubles between my development environment and the actual platform on my user's machines ?
Edit: What I don't understand in particular is that other projects don't give me hints. For example, I just downloaded scipy, a complex library with lots of dependencies. Developers must have all the deps setup before working on it. Despite this, there's nothing in the svn that creates this environment.
Edit: Added a bounty to the question. I think this is an important issue and it deserves to get more answers. I will consider best those answers with real world examples with particular attention towards any arisen issues and their solution.
Additional questions to inspire for the Bounty:
Do you perform testing on your environment (to check proper installation, e.g. on an integration machine) ?
How do you include your environment at shipping time ? If it's C, do you statically link it, or ship the dynamic library, tinkering the LD_LIBRARY_PATH before running the executable? What about the same issue for python, perl, and other ?
Do you stick to the runtime, or update it as time passes? Do you download "trunk" packages of your dependency libraries or a fixed version?
How do you deal with situations like: library foo needs python 2.5, but you need to develop in python 2.4 because library bar does not work with python 2.5 ?
We use a CMake script that generates Makefiles that download (mainly through SVN)/configure/build all our dependencies. Why CMake? Multiplatform. This works quite well, and we support invocation of scons/autopain/cmake. As we build on several platforms (Windows, MacOSX, a bunch of Linux variants) we also support different compile flags etc based on the operating system. Typically a library has a default configuration, and if we encounter a system that needs special configuration the configuration is replaced with a specialized configuration. This works quite well. We did not really find any ready solution that would fit our purpose.
That being said, it is a PITA to get it up and running - there's a lot of knobs to turn when you need to support several operating systems. I don't think it will become a maintainance-nightmare as the dependencies are quite fixed (libraries are upgraded regularly, but we rarely introduce new one).
virtualenv is good, but it can't do magic - e.g. if you want use a library that just MUST have Python 2.4 and another one that absolutely NEEDS 2.5 instead, you're out of luck. Nor can virtualenv (or any other tool) help when there's a brand new release of an OS and half the tools &c just don't support it yet, as you mentioned for Snow Leopard: some problems are just impossible to solve (two libraries with absolutely conflicting needs within the same build), others just require patience (until all tools you need are ported to the new OS's release, you just need to stick with the previous OS release).