Motivation
PreBuild to disable compilation of redundant projects for faster compilation cycle.
Background
I have a VS15 ALL solution that contains many projects.
I have a single project, PreBuild, that all the other projects are dependent on, meaning, this PreBuild compiles first.
In addition, we also have a PostBuild project that do some more work once binaries are ready.
All projects are configured to build in Release mode (which is desired).
When a team member wants to release some binaries, he hits F7, Build Solution.
Now, the PreBuild, activates a separate dedicated process that calculates which projects should be released. The nature of the calculation is irrelevant to this discussion.
Problem
Out of the many many projects, it is often the case that only a few projects needs to be released. However, once the PreBuild process is done, ALL the projects are will compile which is very time consuming.
Question
Is it possible, after a solution build had started, to change the released projects?
Suggested unwanted approaches
A developer handpicks only the relevant projects and only build those.
PreBuild Kill & Revive. Once desired projects are calculated, PreBuild kills the VS15 process and activate a cmd compiling only the relevant projects.
Suggested approach
Change file ALL.sln and remove the the unwanted projects.
This would work had I changed that file prior to the process start but I'm not sure it would work if this change occurs during the process.
The simplest way I can think of, while still keeping most of the current infrastructure in place: have a dedicated project which invokes the release build (by calculating dependencies and invoking msbuild) and configure VS so it can be select just that project for a build. All from within your ALL.sln so the rest of the features remain. Steps:
Get rid of the PreBuild/PostBuild projects. I assume the PostBuild you mention is also meant for the actual release builds; if not just leave it there. Note by not requiring all projects to depend on the PreBuild project you already got rid of one maintainance burden.
Add one single project which will do the release building, say ReleaseBuild. Such name is also better than having PreBuild/PostBuild projects since it clearly states the intent of the project. A Makefile project is suitable, though technically it could be as simple as an msbuild file with just one Build target. Configure the build command line to do whatever is needed, i.e. figuring out what to build then build. For the sake of an example: say you use Powershell to do this you would configure the build commandline to be
Powershell -NoProfile -File BuildRelease.ps1 $(Platform)
and BuildRelease.ps1 contains something like
$projectsToRelease = CalculateMyProjectsForRelease()
$platform = $Args[0]
$projectsToRelease | %{& msbuild $_ "/p:Configuration=Release;Platform=$platform"}
In Configuration Manager add an extra Configuration called Deploy or so. This will be used to select what to build: you probably have Debug and Release configurations now already. Those stay in place, and are simply used to build everything. The idea is this extra configuration will take care of building the actual release. This is fairly consistent with the standard way of working in VS and easy to discover and understand for newcomers. Using the checkboxes, make it so that when the Deploy configuration is selected only the ReleaseBuild is built and none of the others whereas when Debug or Release is selected the ReleaseBuild project is not built. Looks like this:
To build a release, select Deploy from the configuration drop down menu in the VS toolbar and hit F7 (or whatever way you use to invoke Build Solution). Any build errors/warnings will be parsed and shown as usual in the Error List.
This is also easy to extend: suppose you only have a couple of release build versions just add more configurations like DeployA DeployB DeployC and adjust the build command line for them.
Related
I'm trying to automate our main project build (C++) via Team Build system (TFS 2013).
However, I see that a couple of projects are always built, even if no code change has occurred, while this does not happen using VS2013 on my development machine. This would cause some headache since binaries would always be generated and sent to test team even if not really modified.
Enabling "diagnostic" verbosity in build output, I see that the two project exhibit different behavior.
In the first project the log says that all .cpp files are rebuilt because the .PCH file has been modified (although no change happened). I could try disabling the PCH but would really avoid it if possible. Besides, not going to the root cause of the error would leave an open door to the error representing again and again.
In the second project, we have a pre build step that generates a .h file. However, prebuild steps should not run if no change in the code has been detected (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/42x5kfw4.aspx), so happens indeed on my development machine. On the build machine, instead, the prebuild step is executed, the .h is generated and this forces a complete rebuild.
In the team build settings I have "Clean workspace=false", "Clean build=false". I also tried "/p:IncrementalBuild=True" in MSBuild settings, but this did not fix the issue.
Note - I already looked at Visual Studio Rebuilds unmodified projects and VS2010 always rebuilds solution? before posting.
According to your info about project2, the pre build step executed on the build agent and not executed on your local machine. There must be something different with your local build environment and build agent environment. This may be the root cause.
Suggest you to double check it and make sure the environment is the same with each other. And try it again.
I'm on a BizTalk 2013 solution and I'm trying to grow into automated testing. However, when I try to run my tests after changing only the test project, or even just run the tests after changing nothing anywhere, I'm stuck building the same amount of projects that I build when I invoke a full rebuild on the project being tested. This eats up an enormous amount of time, and it's a death sentence for my ability to sell future investments into this type of thing.
Is this is a known deficiency with BizTalk, or with its interaction with MSBuild? Is it a known pitfall that I can repair on my end?
EDIT: After reviewing the "possible duplicate" thread, I believe this question to be similar, but distinct. The explanation from the thread highlights the mechanics by which MSBuild determines that a rebuild is necessary, but MSBuild is widely-used technology across all projects in Visual Studio and can differ significantly by project type based on that project type's specific targets import. I've edited the question title to reflect that I want to learn how to prevent this for BizTalk solutions rather than simply asking why it's happening (although knowing why is always helpful).
So, what you're seeing is not a problem with BizTalk (because BizTalk is perfect and wonderful and never has any problems ever...:).
It's actually a behavior of Visual Studio. To note, BizTalk Projects are just specialized c# Projects.
The best workaround, which I do all the time, is to uncheck the Build and Deploy options for Projects I'm not actively working with in the Solution Configuration. If the Project is not checked for Build, it will not build even when you choose Rebuild Solution.
One possible solution would be to reference not the projects, but the DLL files which are the result of the same - already compiled and built - projects.
This way, when building your test project, it would be built against these existing assemblies and hence would not take the time to rebuild those.
You have to make sure however that these DLLs are updated whenever the project behind them also updates. You could do this by rebuilding them, whenever necessary, in a separate Visual Studio instance.
It takes some practice and thinking to make sure you are building against the latest version, but it WILL save you a lot of time.
I've noticed this as well. Turning on diagnostic output on MSBuild, it turned out that the project settings .user files were being modified after the .pdb files. I've tried several ways of resolving this, including changing the modify date on the pdb file, setting the .user file to readonly, removing (renaming) the .user file, etc.
Unfortunately, the build task for BizTalk will overwrite/recreate/create new .user file after every build, and I haven't come up with a way to convince MSBuild that that it can just ignore the .user file being created as new. Due to that, I'd go with one of the other suggestions here.
Even creating an exclusive lock on the file so that MSBuild can't update it causes a rebuild, since then MSBuild thinks the build is dirty ("Project 'Schemas' is not up to date. Project dirty in MSBuild.")
We have two distinct team projects, both running in TFS 2013 / VS 2013. One of them always builds the whole solution when asked to run all tests in the Test Explorer window, while the other one does not build anything and just tries to run the tests again.
Sometimes we would like to prevent VS from building the whole solution, since we know it did not change or we just don't want to test against the modified changes, for instance.
What setting controls this behavior? I can't really see any differences between both projects to warrant different test behavior. I'm not using any settings file in neither of them, and this was tested with both projects completely cleaned (like deleting the .suo file for example).
I'm aware of two things that may help.
Set files in your solution to Do not copy or Copy if newer
In Tools -> Options -> Projects and Solutions -> Build and Run check the checkbox: Only build startup projects and dependencies on Run
I'm working with these settings and I don't have the issue thought I cannot guarantee it will help in your case.
To build only few projects, you can create a sub solution - meaning the solution will have only few projects and their dependencies.
To stop building every time, use the tools-options-Projects and solutions->Build and run
check, build only the Startup projects and dependencies
and select "never build" in the drop down "On run, when projects are out of date"
Why do you have to build under release configuration, followed by another build of same project in debug configuration in VS2010 C++ to be able to have the debug see updated code?
You don't have to. You only have to build the configurations which you want updated. That is, if you change your code and want to have Debug "see" the updated code, just build Debug. You don't have to build Release.
Of course, then your Release build will not "see" the new code until you build it again.
If you're asking why they have to be built separately - because the code generated by each of these settings is fundamentally different, so there's now way to "reuse" it somehow.
Because each build links to different core libraries, uses different compiler/linker settings, creates different assembly code, and hence different executables, the release one probably more optimized. Btw there is a Batch Build menu item under the Build menu allowing to build everything with one click.
Does anyone have experience using makefiles for Visual Studio C++ builds (under VS 2005) as opposed to using the project/solution setup. For us, the way that the project/solutions work is not intuitive and leads to configuruation explosion when you are trying to tweak builds with specific compile time flags.
Under Unix, it's pretty easy to set up a makefile that has its default options overridden by user settings (or other configuration setting). But doing these types of things seems difficult in Visual Studio.
By way of example, we have a project that needs to get build for 3 different platforms. Each platform might have several configurations (for example debug, release, and several others). One of my goals on a newly formed project is to have a solution that can have all platform build living together, which makes building and testing code changes easier since you aren't having to open 3 different solutions just to test your code. But visual studio will require 3 * (number of base configurations) configurations. i.e. PC Debug, X360 Debug, PS3 Debug, etc.
It seems like a makefile solution is much better here. Wrapped with some basic batchfiles or scripts, it would be easy to keep the configuration explotion to a minimum and only maintain a small set of files for all of the different builds that we have to do.
However, I have no experience with makefiles under visual studio and would like to know if others have experiences or issues that they can share.
Thanks.
(post edited to mention that these are C++ builds)
I've found some benefits to makefiles with large projects, mainly related to unifying the location of the project settings. It's somewhat easier to manage the list of source files, include paths, preprocessor defines and so on, if they're all in a makefile or other build config file. With multiple configurations, adding an include path means you need to make sure you update every config manually through Visual Studio's fiddly project properties, which can get pretty tedious as a project grows in size.
Projects which use a lot of custom build tools can be easier to manage too, such as if you need to compile pixel / vertex shaders, or code in other languages without native VS support.
You'll still need to have various different project configurations however, since you'll need to differentiate the invocation of the build tool for each config (e.g. passing in different command line options to make).
Immediate downsides that spring to mind:
Slower builds: VS isn't particularly quick at invoking external tools, or even working out whether it needs to build a project in the first place.
Awkward inter-project dependencies: It's fiddly to set up so that a dependee causes the base project to build, and fiddlier to make sure that they get built in the right order. I've had some success getting SCons to do this, but it's always a challenge to get working well.
Loss of some useful IDE features: Edit & Continue being the main one!
In short, you'll spend less time managing your project configurations, but more time coaxing Visual Studio to work properly with it.
Visual studio is being built on top of the MSBuild configurations files. You can consider *proj and *sln files as makefiles. They allow you to fully customize build process.
While it's technically possible, it's not a very friendly solution within Visual Studio. It will be fighting you the entire time.
I recommend you take a look at NAnt. It's a very robust build system where you can do basically anything you need to.
Our NAnt script does this on every build:
Migrate the database to the latest version
Generate C# entities off of the database
Compile every project in our "master" solution
Run all unit tests
Run all integration tests
Additionally, our build server leverages this and adds 1 more task, which is generating Sandcastle documentation.
If you don't like XML, you might also take a look at Rake (ruby), Bake/BooBuildSystem (Boo), or Psake (PowerShell)
You can use nant to build the projects individually thus replacing the solution and have 1 coding solution and no build solutions.
1 thing to keep in mind, is that the solution and csproj files from vs 2005 and up are msbuild scripts. So if you get acquainted with msbuild you might be able to wield the existing files, to make vs easier, and to make your deployment easier.
We have a similar set up as the one you are describing. We support at least 3 different platforms, so the we found that using CMake to mange the different Visual Studio solutions. Set up can be a bit painful, but it pretty much boils down to reading the docs and a couple of tutorials. You should be able to do virtually everything you can do by going to the properties of the projects and the solution.
Not sure if you can have all three platforms builds living together in the same solution, but you can use CruiseControl to take care of your builds, and running your testing scripts as often as needed.