It seems like some of the merge conflicts are even in an errors.txt file...
Is it ok to just delete all the autogenerated files and then regenerate them?
Yep! You can (and should) delete the autogenerated files and then regenerate them. You could manually resolve the conflicts, but that's error-prone and could cause weird issues if you mess anything up.
Related
In a huge SSDT database solution with lots of projects and references, I'm adding a reference from my project to system databases(master, msdb), it works well, and the build is successful.
And after some time I start receiving errors about incorrect reference. I go to the references section and see this: https://pasteboard.co/JqzDSDh.png
I tried removing the second reference and the errors were gone but then this issue comes back and I see two identical references again.
Thank you!
Most probably something is wrong with your project.sqlproj file. Try to search master.dacpac keyword there and make sure that there is no multiple entries. Make sure that dacpac path is not fully hardcoded, but uses $(DacPacRootPath) variable there.
This is an example how the reference should look like (make sure that you have the right SQL version defined in the path. Mine one is 140 here).
<ArtifactReference Include="$(DacPacRootPath)\Extensions\Microsoft\SQLDB\Extensions\SqlServer\140\SqlSchemas\master.dacpac">
<HintPath>$(DacPacRootPath)\Extensions\Microsoft\SQLDB\Extensions\SqlServer\140\SqlSchemas\master.dacpac</HintPath>
<SuppressMissingDependenciesErrors>False</SuppressMissingDependenciesErrors>
<DatabaseVariableLiteralValue>master</DatabaseVariableLiteralValue>
</ArtifactReference>
If that wouldn't help, try to run "Clean Solution", then delete all *.jfm files and *.dbmdl files, bin and obj folders and re-build the project.
I'm using add_custom_command() to generate some files. ninja clean removes them, as it should. One of the files is intended as a default/example implementation, to be modified by the user. It is only generated if it does not already exist. I would like for ninja clean not to remove this file.
I have tried a number of things but without success:
add_custom_target(): CMake complains about the missing file unless I name it in BYPRODUCTS, but doing this also leads to removal on clean
set_file_properties(... GENERATED FALSE) doesn't work because CMake complains about the file missing.
set_directory_properties() failed in a similar way: "folder doesn't exist or not yet processed" (it does exist)
I previously generated the example implementation and just let the user copy it or model their code on it. This works, but isn't entirely satisfactory. Is my use-case so unlikely that CMake doesn't support it?
I am afraid you requirment (conceptually, have make create something which make clean does not remove) is rather unusual. I can think of two potential solutions/workarounds.
One, move the file's generation to CMake time. That is, create it using execute_process() instead of add_custom_command(). This may or may not be possible, based on whether the file-generation process (the current custom command) depends on the rest of the build or not.
Two, totally hide the example file's existence from CMake. That is, have the custom command also generate some other file (maybe just a timestamp file) and have its driving custom target depend on that one instead. Do not list the example file as ither the custom command's dependency, output, or byproduct. That way, nothing will depend on it and neither CMake nor Ninja should not care whether it exists or not, so they will not complain or try to clean it up.
If it is an example for the user, it should not be in your build folder, but in the install folder. I don't see why you would need add_custom_command or the other commands you listed.
Therefore, you have to provide install() instructions.
You can then call make install. Cleaning will not remove those and only installing again will overwrite them if necessary.
For those, who come here a long time after the original question was asked (like me), I'll write my solution:
The tool called in add_custom_command generates two files with identical content:
one that is saved in sources, never mentioned anywhere
and one that's marked as byproduct, and then is depended on
So the first one is the file we wanted in the first place.
And the second one is actually used in build process, and gets deleted on clean.
For me the issue is that I actually want to save generated files in VCS so I can track changes. And this approach gives ne what I need.
I am working with multiple processes that write to the same directory.
I have a directory dir1/
My process creates a file a.txt under dir1/. However the other process creates a-temp1.txt and renames it to a.txt. I don't have control over the other process since that code comes from a library. Can I prevent a-temp.txt from being renamed?
There's nothing you can do that the other process can't undo. Your best hope (other than changing your program to work sanely) is that the other process doesn't try too hard to do the rename. That is, it tries the simple approach and gives up if that fails.
In particular, you can set the UF_IMMUTABLE flag on either file and that will prevent one from being renamed to replace the other. You can set the flag using chflags(). Using Cocoa, you could also use [someURL setResourceValue:#YES forKey:NSURLIsUserImmutableKey error:NULL].
Keep in mind that you won't be able to change the file in any other way, either, until that flag is removed. If the other process is determined to rename the file, it has permission to remove the flag just like your process does.
Also keep in mind that a system such as this is inherently race-prone.
You really ought to use separate names for the files, or separate directories, or ditch that library that doesn't give you the control you need.
Set the user immutable flag chflags(...,uchg). This will keep the other process from changing your file unless it takes action to clear the bit. Of course I don't know how the other process will react to you putting things in it's way, but that wasn't the question.
You can use chflags() on an HFS+ (Mac OS X) file system to set the UF_APPEND attribute. (Do a man 2 chflags.) That will permit appending to the file, but not deleting or renaming, even by the same user.
You can, but it unlikely will solve your problem. I strongly suspect this is an X-Y problem, and almost certainly the correct solution is to redesign some part of this system entirely, probably by changing your file names, using unique temporary files, moving to another directory, or reworking the usage of the library (libraries only do what callers tell them to do; and libraries are just code anyway). You shouldn't try to defeat another process; you're all working for the same user.
All that said, sure, you can prevent your own userid from renaming over file. Just deny yourself permission. You can modify the file:
chmod 400 a.txt
That says that you can read the file but may not write it. However, if you already have an open file handle, you may continue to use it (so you can keep writing to the file, even though another process running as the same user may not).
Similarly, you may change permissions on the directory:
chmod 500 .
This would prevent the rename because file names are kept in the directory.
Is there a way to tell bzr not to create .moved files? I've tried the --overwrite option with a bzr pull, but it still creates the .moved files. I guess I can just make a clean-up script, but I was just wondering if I am missing something.
You have conflicts in some filenames: either you have unversioned foo in your tree and you pull revision where foo becomes versioned, or you have added foo in two different branches independently and therefore each copy of foo got assigned different file-ids. So Bazaar tries to save your files there and avoid overwrite your existing files. In the first case you have harmless backup facility from bzr, and foo.moved can be deleted. But in the second case you have real conflict and you should at least inspect both foo and foo.moved and resolve conflict with bzr resolve foo, then delete foo.moved if needed.
So the strategy to avoid .moved files is pretty much depend on the reason why they are appear in your tree.
This is to avoid having some <<< or some >>> in that file if there are conflicts.
If there is a conflict, I just want a message telling me there is a conflict and bazaar should not mess with the file.
With subversion, you can modify the svn:mime-type property. But I don't know if Bazaar have this feature.
The reference says that there is no explicit way of telling so far:
Bazaar currently relies of [sic] content analysis to detect binary files for commands like diff. In the future, a binary = true rule may be added but it is not supported yet.
It is annoying, but you still have the .BASE, .OTHER and .THIS files which are unchanged, you just replace the altered file with the one you need.
Can be scripted, I suppose.