An Intellij Scope can be used to restrict the files analysed during "Inspect Code".
Question: Is there a way to define a scope from the files that differ between two commits or between a commit (or branch) and the current working directory?
This would simplify finding problems freshly introduced in a feature branch and would be particularly helpful for old code bases where running the inspections over the whole project generates too many unrelated findings.
Note that the Scope "uncommitted files" does not help a code review with several commits on a feature branch.
There is a feature request for it, please feel free to vote:
https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-145053/Run-inspections-for-the-scope-of-selected-commits
Related
I'm in the process of introducing FAKE as a build tool.
ProjectScaffold looks like a great start in addition to the FAKE help.
However in my case, listing relevant csproj/fsproj files cannot easily be achieved with !! "src/**/*.??proj" as used in the "AssemblyInfo" target for instance. The reason being that my repo contains code for different products + common code, not properly laid out under dedicated directories.
My plan is to start from the product's entry assembly and navigate recursively its projects dependencies to yield the full list of projects involved in the given product's build.
I believe MSBuild should be able to help with this. Obviously, I want to avoid building everything twice: once to get the list of projects before altering their assembly info and then the actual build.
Or maybe there are helpers in FAKE that could help with this task?
Any other advice when it comes to handling different product builds living under the same repo is welcome. Note that breaking down this repo into smaller repos (one per product) might be considered in the future, but not at the moment.
Is there a way to export my IntelliJ IDEA favourites for backup, or to share with colleagues, like the way I can export my code formatting preferences (File > Export Settings)?
I'm working on a large codebase (one IDEA project), and have to switch between different new feature tasks and bug fixes, so I find it really convenient to create new Favourites list per Task or Jira ticket.
My Favourites tab is full with tens of favourite lists, and it's getting harder everyday to browse through them. So I could organise my work better if I could export them (ideally a different export per task, but grouping them is OK too), and reimport when I need to work on them again.
Any alternative suggestions are welcome. Thanks
#Eugene Morozov Fortunately yes !
And I must admit that I'm very disappointed in the fact that there is no IntelliJ team support for this topic,
or some guidance to help people, as this happens pretty much after all new versions of IntelliJ and it's update,
and as a consequence, it impacts a developer's work, at least for us who work on really big projects.
So I've decided, to make this short tutorial how to restore back your bookmarks for Windows 10 users :
As of version 2020.1, IntelliJ operates under hidden Windows user AppData folder :
e.g. C:\Users<windows.user.name>\AppData\Roaming\JetBrains\IntelliJIdea\workspace
Even more, under C:\Users<windows.user.name>\AppData\Roaming\JetBrains there are previous versions, (along with backup folders !)
and under appropriate version, in folder "workspace" there are all modifications, in the form of <funny_ssh_like_fileName>.xml
(e.g. 1lFTpsTT6pUo3tksBtYpwaD5qZ2.xml)
So, in my case, I've :
opened ~\AppData\Roaming\JetBrains\IntelliJIdea2020.3\workspace
sort files to descend based on modified flag
opened the newest one, and found that there is just one new bookmark, without previous ones !
so, I opened next recent xml, found and copied everything in between,
into the current IntelliJ workspace file
(Note this answer may now be out of date)
Bookmarks come under <component name="BookmarkManager"> in the .idea\workspace.xml. (Since the answer was posted the location changed to AppData)
But the problem is that:
If you try to use the bookmarks on a file that has changed, the line numbers the bookmarks point to will likely have changed and the links are broken.
I am working on building a new SSIS project from scratch. I want to work with couple of my teammates. I was hoping to get a suggestion on how we can have some have some source control, so that few of us can work concurrently on the same SSIS project (same dtsx file, building new packages.)
Version:
SQL Server Integration Service v11
Microsoft Visual Studio 2010
It is my experience that there are two opportunities for any source control system and SSIS projects to get out of whack: adding new items to the project and concurrent changes to an existing package.
Adding new items
An SSIS project has the .dtproj extension. Inside there, it's "just" XML defining what all belongs to the project. At least for 2005/2008 and 2012+ on the package deployment model. The 2012+ project deployment model carries a good bit more information about the state of the packages in the project.
When you add new packages (or project level connection managers or .biml files) the internal structure of the .dtproj file is going to change. Diff tools generally don't handle merging XML well. Or at all really. So, to prevent the need for merging the project definition, you need to find a strategy that works for you team.
I've seen two approaches work well. The first is to upfront define all the packages you think you'll need. DimFoo, DimDate, DimFoo, DimBar, FactBlee. Check that project and the associated empty packages in and everyone works on what is out there. When the initial cut of packages is complete, then you'll ensure everyone is sync'ed up and then add more empty packages to the project. The idea here is that there is one person, usually the lead, who is responsible for changing the "master" project definition and everyone consumes from their change.
The other approach requires communication between team members. If you discover a package needs to be added, communicate with your mates "I need to add a new package - has anyone modified the project?" The answer should be No. Once you've notified that a change to the project definition is coming, make it and immediately commit it. The idea here is that people commit and sync/check in whatever terminology with great frequency. If you as a developer don't keep your local repository up to date, you're going to be in for a bad time.
Concurrent edits
Don't. Really, that's about it. The general problem with concurrent changes to an SSIS package is that in addition to the XML diff issue above, SSIS also includes layout data alongside tasks so I can invert the layout and make things flow from bottom to top or right to left and there's no material change to SSIS package but as Siyual notes "Merging changes in SSIS is nightmare fuel"
If you find your packages are so large and that developers need to make concurrent edits, I would propose that you are doing too much in there. Decompose your packages into smaller, more tightly focused units of work and then control their execution through a parent package. That would allow a better level of granularity to your development and debugging process in addition to avoiding the concurrent edit issue.
A dtsx file is basically just an xml file. Compare it to a bunch of people trying to write the same book. The solution I suggest is to use Team Foundation Server as a source control. That way everyone can check in and out and merge packages. If you really dont have that option try to split your ETL process in logical parts and at the end create a master package that calls each sub packages in the right order.
An example: Let's say you need to import stock data from one source, branches and other company information from an internal server and sale amounts from different external sources. After u have all information gathered, you want to connect those and run some analyses.
You first design the target database entities that you need and the relations. One of your member creates a package that does all the import to staging tables. Another guy maybe handles external sources and parallelizes / optimizes the loading. You would build a package that in merges your staging and production tables, maybe historicizing and so on.
At the end you have a master package that calls each of the mentioned packages and maybe some additional logging or such.
In our multi-developer operation, we follow this rough plan:
Each dev has their own branch, separate from master branch
Once a week, devs push all their changes to remote
One of us pulls all changes, and merges all branches into master, manually resolving .dtproj conflicts as we go
Merge master in all dev branches - now all branches agree
Test in VS
Push all branches to remote, other devs can now pull and keep working
It's not a perfect solution, but it helps quarantine the amount of merge pain we have to experience.
We have large ssis solutions with 20+ packages in one solution, with TFS Git. One project required adding a bunch of new packages to the existing solution. We thought we were smart and knew to assign only one person to work on each new package, 2 people working on the same package would be suicide. Wasn't good enough. When 2 people tried add a different named, new, package at the same time, each showed dtproj as a file that had changed/needed to be checked in and suddenly I found myself looking at the xml for dtproj and trying to figure out which lines to keep (Microsoft should never ask end users to manually edit their internal files, which only they wrote and understand). Billinkc's solutions here are very good and the problem is very real. You may think that Microsoft is the great Wise One, and that your team can always add new packages to an existing solution without conflicts, but you'd be wrong. It also doesn't work to put dtproj in .gitignore. If you do that, you won't see other peoples new packages (actually the .dtsx file will come down in git, but you won't see that package in Solution Explorer because dtproj is what feeds Solution Explorer). This is a current problem (2021) and we are using Visual Studio 2017 Enterprise with SSDT.
To explain this problem to people, git obviously can handle a group of independent, individual files in a directory (like say .bat files) and can add, change, and delete those files easily. The problem comes in when you have a file that is naming, describing, and counting all the files in a directory (what dtproj does). When you have a file like dtproj you are creating a conflict on dtproj itself, when 2 people try to a add a new package at the same time. Your dtproj file has a line that shows the package you added, and my dtproj file shows the package I added, and tfs/git sees that as a Conflict.
Some are suggesting ways to deal with this if you have to add a lot of new packages, my idea is a little different. For the people who have to add new packages, don't work in the primary solution where this problem is, work somewhere else. Probably best to work in the "Projects" directory you get when you install Visual Studio, outside of TFS/Git. Obviously follow all the standards, Variable naming, and Package Configuration conventions for the target Solution. Then when the new packages are ready, give the .dtsx files to your Solution Gatekeeper for them to check in. Only the Gatekeeper can check in new packages using Add From Existing, avoiding conflicts. Once the package is checked in, developers can work on them in the main Solution.
There are often conflicts in the Xcode project file (Project.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj) when merging branches (I'm using git). Sometimes it's easy, but at times I end up with a corrupt project file and have to revert. In the worst case I have to fix up the project file manually in a second commit (which can be squashed with the previous) by dragging in files etc.
Does anyone have tips for how to handle merge conflicts in big and complex files like the Xcode project file?
EDIT-- Some related questions:
Git and pbxproj
Should I merge .pbxproj files with git using merge=union?
RESOURCES:
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/xmldiffmerge
http://www2.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~obecker/XSLT/#merge
http://tdm.berlios.de/3dm/doc/thesis.pdf
http://www.cs.hut.fi/~ctl/3dm/
http://el4j.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/el4j/trunk/el4j/framework/modules/xml_merge/
Break your projects up into smaller, more logical libraries/packages. Massive projects are regularly the sign of a bad design, like the object that does way too much or is way too large.
Design for easy rebuilding -- this also helps if you're writing programs which must be built by multiple tools or IDEs. Many of my 'projects' can be reconstructed by adding one directory.
Remove extraneous build phases. Example: I've removed the "Copy Headers" build phase from all projects. Explicitly include the specific files via the include directive.
Use xcconfig files wherever possible. This also reduces the number of changes you must make when updating your builds. xcconfig files define a collection of build settings, and support #include. Of course, you then delete the (majority of) user defined settings from each project and target when you define the xcconfig to use.
For target dependencies: create targets which perform logical operations, rather than physical operations. This is usually a shell script target or aggregate target. For example: "build dependencies", "run all unit tests", "build all", "clean all". then you do not have to maintain every dependency change every step of a way - it's like using references.
Define a common "Source Tree" for your code, and a second for 3rd party sources.
There are external build tools available. This may be an option for you (at least, for some of your targets).
At this point, a xcodeproj will be much simpler. It will require fewer changes, and be very easy to reconstruct. You can go much further with these concepts to further reduce the complexity of your projects and builds.
You might want to try https://github.com/simonwagner/mergepbx/
It is a script that will help you to merge Xcode project files correctly. Note that it is still alpha.
Disclaimer: I am the author of mergepbx.
The best way I have found is to instruct Git to treat the .pbxproj file as a binary. This prevents messy merges.
Add this to your .gitatributes file:
*.pbxproj -crlf -diff -merge
To compare two Xcode projects open open FileMerge (open xcode and select Xcode (from the manu pane) --> Open developer tools --> FileMerge).
now click "left" button and open xcode project main directory.
click "right" button and open xcode project main directory to compare.
Now click "merge" button!
Thats it!
Another option to consider which may help to reduce the number of times you experience the problem. To explain, I'll call the branch that team members' branches come from the "develop" branch.
Have a convention in your team that when the project file is modified, the changes (along with any other changes required to ensure the build integrity) are committed in a separate commit. That commit is then cherry picked onto the develop branch. Other team members who plan to modify the project file in their branch can then either cherry pick into their branch or rebase their branch on the latest develop. This approach requires communication across the team and some discipline. As I said, it won't always be possible; on some projects it might help a lot and on some projects it might not.
I have a large Flash Builder project that is part of a much larger (.net) solution. I typically have, for the entire project, a forward dev branch going, as well one or more bug fix branches. What is the best way to set this up in Flash Builder, given that Flash Builder does NOT want to import an new project (bug fix branch) that has the same name as an existing (forward dev branch) project?
The best way is understand the workspace limitations. Eclipse doesn't accept projects with the same name, is an old problem. I could say you, isn't only eclipse, but a lot IDEs have such problem and bugs about it.
We want a create a project, production, what is the current stable version, at least one bug test and the next project version. Then, in this Eclipse case, you should name it to something like ProjectNameProd, ProjectNameBugFix and ProjectNameNextVersion. It's also good for browser files by path, as you have the folder saying what is inside.
You can put all in one SVN or GIT repo, or create one repository for each one of these contents. Then, configure the Eclipse/Flash Builder to use SVN, follow this well explained.
Another, not well, approach is set one project and all your targets but it is really a mess to organize and keep things separated.
Hope help you.