Is it possible have two projects with the same name in flex builder?
Here is the scenario
~/projects/myprojectdev/ProjectName
~/projects/myprojectstable/ProjectName
myprojectdev
and
myprojectstable
are more or less the same tree structure and duplicates of the same codebase.
I am using git to manage them as separate repositories. I can do some stuff in the myprojectdev folder and then occasionally merge changes over to the myprojectstable folder when I am satisfied. But I want to keep code from myprojectstable in my working space in flex builder to be able to launch it and occasionally compare the code between dev and stable. I may also want to open different versions of the same project codebase and compare them in the working environment. The problem is that in both folders the "ProjectName" is the same. And so I can't import both into my Flex Builder workspace. I get the warning
A project with the same name already
exists in your workspace. Rename or
delete the existing project.
But I don't want to rename the project or mess with its folder structure. What do I do? Do I have to keep these in different folders? e.g.
~/projects/myprojectdev/ProjectNameDev
~/projects/myprojectstable/ProjectNameStable
You can rename a project (in eclipse/flex builder) without actually renaming the folder it is in. Edit the .project file in your ProjectNameDev and ProjectNameDev to give the projects different names. You might need to restart eclipse to get it to recognize the new name.
Related
Historical context:
We have a project consisting of following parts:
Host application (C++)
Scripting Engine library (also written in C++)
A lot of C++ plugins (around 30+)
A lot of scripts that tie all the stuff together...
From version to version some plugins are added and some are removed.
Till now we used Visual Studio solution (*.sln) to contain all the projects (*.vcxproj) for Host application, Scripting Engine library and plugins (one *.vcxproj per plugin!).
To share sources/projects we use proprietary source control system, and till now once we merged updates from the server (some plugin projects are added and some plugin projects are removed) all the project tree in the VS were refreshed thanks to "reload" feature (no action was required from developer to see and build updated source tree).
The problem:
Now our senior management decided to switch to Eclipse CDT/MinGW pair and we faced the issue that Eclipse Workspace is not the same thing as Visual Studio *.sln ...
Now when some plugin project folder appears or some plugin project folders disappears corresponding workspace items do not update accordingly.
Thus from now every developer has to use File>Import...>General>"Existing projects into workspace" File/"Open Projects from File System" to add new projects to own Workspace manually once they were added by other developer to the source control.
Also one has to manually remove from own Workspace those plugin projects that were deleted from source control...
This is a great contrast with what we previously had with Visual Studio where "reload" feature automatically updated project/source tree (just bacause all the information arrived with *.sln/*.vcxproj from server).
Our first option was to place Workspace\.metadata etc stuff to source control (as we previously did for *.sln files) but "that is not the way how Eclipse Workspace is designed to be used" (this is even not possible just because paths in .metadata\* are absolute and tons of Workspace\* stuff it is not mergeable at all)
Question:
Is there some way to automatically syncronize Eclipse CDT Workspace with project set obtained from source control. Like just press some (hidden?) magic "refresh" button (in special plugin to install or something like that) and all the new projects will be automatically added to the source tree in the Workspace and deleted projects will also disappear automatically, wothout need to use all those "Import" wizards, and withot need to remove deleted projects manually?
May be there is a special "Container" project type in Eclipse to play the same role as *.sln did in Visual Studio or something like that?
May be other options available?... Overall intention is not in replacing *.sln by some Eclipse equivalent but to support similar workflow when bunch of plugin projects is managed as a whole and project set "refresh" to be simple operation that does not require from each person in the team to manually track projects appeared/disappeared in that set.
Have you looked at using CMake to generate the Eclipse project files? You can then import those into an Eclipse workspace.
Its not automatic, but if you create separate CMakeLists.txt files for each part, then you can easily comment the include of that part in the main CMakeLists.txt file and regenerate the project files when you only want to load subset of the project.
https://cmake.org/Wiki/Eclipse_CDT4_Generator
Should you ever want to change back to VS or to another IDE CMake can generate project files for that too.
I've personally only used CMake to generate VS-solutions and Unix make files so I can't vouch for how well this works.
HTH.
On side note, why did management decide that Eclipse should be used instead of Visual Studio? It sounds like a poor decision without factual grounds or impact research prior to the decision being made.
Was it because Eclipse is free? Did they consider what reduced developer productivity costs?
So, we are in this process of migrating XAML Builds to vNext (2015) Builds on TFS, and we are trying to "do things as clean as possible", since we had many, many customizations on the XAML builds that could be avoided and actually gave us problems along the way.
One major issue we are facing is with paths and "global files". Let me explain:
There are some files that, for commodity reasons, we have on a single place and every SLN file on that Collection refers them. Those files are such ones as Code Analysis RuleSets, Signing Files (SNK), etc. So the change is made in one place only and it affects every build.
Well, in XAML Builds we have a Build that runs with CI that downloads (Gets) those files, and since we hammered-in the same exact pathing for TFS and Machine (with a environment variable for the beginning of the path), the path is the same on the Developers and Build machines. However, this creates dependencies between builds and workspace issues.
My question here is, is there a configuration that I am missing that allows referring to files in other branches other than the build one? Since I’m trying to keep the build machines as “disposable” as possible, it’s running with an Agent Config Out of the Box: No custom paths, no hardwiring.
I already tried referring the files directly with their source control path, for example. The only options I’m seeing are either creating a PowerShell/CMD Script that downloads those files right into the same folder as the SLN or keeping it “as it is” and use relative paths putting a “Build” Build Step before the actual Build Step so it downloads the files to the server.
Isn’t there an “Elegant” way of doing this? Or is our methodology wrong from the get go?
You can add a Copy Files step to copy the files that the build needs:
I have an issue that I want to share with you and ask for advice.
Let's say I have a project in TFS with a source code folders and folder with deployment scripts. Folders structure:
-- TFS
---- PROJECT
--------DEPLOYMENTSCRIPTS
--------SOURCE
DeploymentScripts folder is a container for custom deployment scripts that are being executed by TFS Build process.
Source - is a folder with a source code where for each new release I create a label to use it later for deployment.
I have a build definition configured to takes files from both folders, so I expect that TFS will download the content of both folders each time I trigger a build:
And this perfectly works when TFS build takes the latest version: it takes everything, builds and deploys.
The issue appears once I configure what label to take:
TFS downloads only the content of Source folder ignoring DeploymentScripts. I suppose that this happens because we use labels only for Source folder and not in DeploymetScripts (the content of this folder is static, there are no any changes). I know, that if I make DeploymentScripts a sub-folder of Sources that will fix my issue, but I want to keep it separate (for example, if I later create a bunch of branch folders I don't want to copy deployment to each specific folder, I want to have as a one instance) and try to find a solution for this case.
Either apply your label at the root level, or start your build using a date or changeset number.
Another approach would be to use branching rather than labels, and set up your build to allow you to pass in the name of the branch to be built.
I no longer use labels, I can't think of a situation where they would be useful to me these days.
If I encountered a team doing this my first question would be why do they need to use Labels to accomplish whatever workflow they are after. This is an unusual practice, most teams just do a Get Latest, and use an appropriate branching strategy to achieve their desired workflow.
If you must use a Label one option is to include the DeploymentScripts in your Labels. You can do this without have to move the folder location in source control by editing your Label.
I am trying to import an existing c++ application's source into visual studio to take advantage of some specific MS tools. However, after searching online and playing with visual studio, I cannot seem to find an easy way to import existing c++ source code into visual studio and keep it structurally intact.
The import capacity I did find flattens out the directories and puts them all into one project. Am I missing something?
(This is all unmanaged C++, and contains specific builds for win/unix)
With no project/solution loaded, in Visual Studio 2005 I see this menu item:
File > New Project From Existing Code...
After following the wizard, my problem is solved!
Switching the "Show All Files" button shows the complete hierarchy with all directories and files within.
If the New Project From Existing Code... option isn't available, you'll need to add it in Tools > Customize...
I am not aware of any general solution under the constraints given - specifically having to create many projects from a source tree.
The best option I see is actually creating the project files by some script.
Creating a single project manually (create empty project, then add the files),
Configure it as close as possible as desired (i.e. with precompiled headers, build configurations, etc.)
Use the .vcproj created as skeleton for the project files to be created
A very simple method would file list, project name etc. with "strange tokens", and fill them in with your generator. If you want to be the good guy, you can of course use some XML handling library.
Our experience: We actually don't store the .vcproj and .sln in the repository (git) anymore, but a python script that re-genrates them from the source tree, together with VS 2008 "property sheet templates" (or whatever they are called). This helps a lot making general adjustments.
The project generation script contains information about all the projects specialties (e.g. do they use MFC/ATL, will it create DLL or an EXE, files to exclude).
In addition, this script also contains dependencies, which feeds the actual build script.
This works quite well, the problems are minor: python requried in build systems, not forgetting to re-gen the project files, me having to learn some python to make adjustments to some projects.
#Michael Burr "How complex are the python scripts and whatever supporting 'templates' you might need?"
I honestly can't tell, since I gave the task to another dev (who picked python). The original task was to provide a build script, as the VS2008 solution build was not good enough for our needs, and the old batch file didn't support parallelization. .vcproj generation was added later. As I understand his script generates the .vcproj and .sln files from scratch, but pulls in all the settings from separate property sheets.
Pros:
Adding new configurations on the fly. Some of the projects already had six configurations, and planning for unicode support meant considering doubling them for a while. Some awkward tools still build as MBCS, so some libs do have 8 configs now. Configuring that from hand is a pain, now it just doesn't bother me anymore.
Global changes, e.g. moving around relative project paths, the folder for temp files and for final binaries until we found a solution we were happy with
Build Stability. Merging VC6 project files was a notable source of errors for various reasons, and VC9 project files didn't look better. Now things seem isolated better: compile/link settings in the property sheets, file handling in the script. Also, the script mostly lists variations from our default, ending up easier to read than a project file.
Generally: I don't see a big benefit when your projects are already set up, they are rather stable, and you don't have real issues. However, when moving into the unknown (for us: mostly VC6 -> VC9 and Unicode builds), the flexibility reduced the risk of experiments greatly.
Create a new empty solution and add your source code to it.
For example,
File>New>Project...
Visual C++>Win32>Win32 Console Application
Application Settings>
- Uncheck "Precompiled Header"
- Check "Empty Project"
Project is then created. To add existing code:
Project>Add Existing Item...>
- Select file(s) to add
Recompile, done!
In the "Solution Explorer" you can click on the "Show All Files" button to have Visual Studio display the files as they exist on the file system (directories and all).
In my opinion this is an imperfect workaround, but I believe it's the best available. I'm unaware of a plug-in, macro or other tool that'll import a directory into an actual project with folders that mirror the file system's.
I know this question is already marked correct, but I was able to import existing code into a project with Visual Studio 2008 by doing "File" -> "New Project from existing code". The directory structure of my code was retained.
You can always switch view from project menu
For eg. Project->Show All Files
The above will display the files in unformated raw file system order
Not sure of older versions but it works on VS 2010
I understand you, I have the same problem: many .cpp and .h files organized in many folders and subfolders with include paths written for this folder structure. The only way you can do to import this folder structure together with the source files is to use "Show All Files" and then right-click on folders and select "Import in Project". This works for me when I am using C-Sharp projects. But it does not work for my C++ Projects. I am still searching for a solution...
Is it possible to combine the following properties, and if so, how?
Store in our version control system some Visual Studio 2008 native C++ (VCPROJ) project files for the developers in our team that use this IDE.
Allow some of those developers to tweak their projects (e.g. using debug version of third-party libraries instead of the usual ones).
Make sure these modifications are done in files that are not versioned.
In other words, I would like to allow developers to tweak some settings in their projects without risking that these changes are committed.
An 'optional VSPROP' file approach seems doomed to fail, as VS2008 refuses to load projects that refer to non-existent VSPROP files...
Any other suggestion? Is this possible with VS2010?
You may not be able to do this but using a solution that generates the vcproj like CMake for example would let you do this. Scripts all your project with CMake and literally conditionally include a config file(if present for example) that developers can change on their setup.
Branches could solve this problem: you create a branch, play with different versions of third-party, merge changes to trunk if results are good.
Well, as a preliminary solution you could put the project file into something like .hgignore or .gitignore after its initial commit.
This way changes to it can't be done accidentally.
At least that's how I handle .hgignore itself.
We use a versionned "common_configuration" folder, and a script which copies project files from this "common_configuration" folder towards the "project" folder.
We have another script to copy the configuration backwards, so the developpers need to make a conscious action to commit their local changes to the global version control system.
It answers partly your needs :
The upside : we have a way to keep a common configuration for everyone, and no accidental committing of local configuration
The downside : blindly copying the files actually crushes local changes. We live with it. We could write some more clever merger tool (using diff, or xml specific manipulations), but don't want to spend to much time on supporting the deployment tools.