I am using VA Smalltalk and I want to understand how to delete particular editions of any method which I have created by mistake, they are not duplicate methods but are unwanted as well. please let me know if there is a way to do so, I dont want to delete all the previous edition only few selected editions
As far as I know there is no possibility to delete method editions in VAST. You can purge application editions to keep the history "clean", but on the method level the editions you've saved will still remain.
Related
Note: it is quite possible that I am being an idiot about this issue. If so, I apologize in advance. I did some looking (here and on other sites) and didn't see an answer. Perhaps I didn't properly phrase my search terms. Again, my apologies.
This behavior I am seeing started with VS 2017 and did not happen in prior versions of VS.
What happens is when I am typing an IF statement in VB.Net 2017, Intellisense and auto-complete either does not happen or changes my input to something completely different, and very un-helpful. To get back to the functionality I would expect, I have to stop what I am typing and space over and type: )then and press Enter. Then, when I go back into the body of the IF statement to specify the test condition, Intellisense and auto-complete work as expected, and as they did in previous versions of VS.
Is anyone else having this issue? Is there something that I can do (switch setting, etc.) to get rid of this annoyance? I would have to imagine that there is a setting somewhere that would fix this that I am unaware of.
Thanks in advance,
Bob Kiser
A few years back i worked in a company where i could press CTRL+T and a TODO-comment was generated - say my ID to be identified by other developers was xy45 then the generated comment was:
//TODO (xy45):
Is something available from within Intellij 14 Ultimate or did they write their own plugin for it?
What i tried: Webreserach, Jetbrais documentations - it looks like its not possible out of the box (i however ask before i write a plugin for it) or masked by the various search results regarding the TODO-view (due to bad research skills of mine).
There is no built-in feature in IntelliJ IDEA to generate such comments, so it looks like they did write their own plugin.
Found something that works quite similar but is not boundable to a shortcut:
File -> Settings -> Live Templates
I guess the picture says enoth to allow customization (consult the Jetbrains documentation for more possibilities). E.g. browse to the Live Template section within the settings, add a new Live Template (small green cross, upper right corner in the above picture) and set the context where this Live Template is applicable.
Note: Once you defined the Live Template to be applicable within Java (...Change in the above image where the red exclamation marks are shown) context you can just type "t", "todo" and hit CTRL+Space (or the shortcut you defined for code completion).
I suggest to reconsider using that practice at all. Generally you should not include redundant information which is easily and more reliably accessible through your Version Control System (easily available in Idea directly in editor using Annotate feature). It is similiar to not using javadoc tag #author as the information provided with it is often outdated inaccurate and redundant. Additionaly, I don´t think author of TODO is that much valuable information. Person who will solve the issue will often be completly different person and the TODO should be well documented and descriptive anyway. When you find your own old TODO, which is poorly documented, you often don't remember all the required information even if you were the author.
However, instead of adding author's name, a good practice is to create a task in you issue management system and add identifier of this task to the description of the todo. This way you have all your todos in evidence at one place, you can add additional information to the task, track progress, assign it etc. My experience is that if you don´t use this, todos tend to stay in the code forever and after some time no one remembers clearly the details of the problem. Additionaly, author mentioned in the todo is often already gone working for a different company.
Annotated TODO with issue ID
In the documentation:
Buttons Save or Fork are always present in the UI. First one appears if no fiddle was loaded, the latter is used to create a new fiddle from the existing one.
I ONLY see SAVE when the fiddle is brand new, then RUN/update/fork. In Fx4 and Safari 5 on MAC (and Fx 4 on pc)
UPDATE: New BASE functionality does exactly what I wanted.
From the SO FAQ
Stack Overflow is for professional and
enthusiast programmers, people who
write code because they love it. We
feel the best Stack Overflow questions
have a bit of source code in them, but
if your question generally covers …
a specific programming problem
a software algorithm
software tools commonly used by programmers
matters that are unique to the programming profession
… then you’re in the right place to ask your question!
When you log into JsFiddle, you'll get a Set as Base button, which will make the revision you're working on the base version - think of it as an alias for john/7hd62/12/ -> john/7hd62/.
I ran into an issue where set as base would not save my work. The solution was to:
make a change.
Update to get a new version.
Set as Base.
Hope that helps
I always use Update to save and create a new revision.
I haven't seen the button Save... maybe it is so that we can't Save to a version, but always need to Update to a new version, so everybody can look at the same code at a certain version.
Have a look on Issue #225 in JSFiddle GitHub Repository - URL for the latest version of a fiddle such as /xxxxx/latest/:
#zalun: Please read http://doc.jsfiddle.net/basic/introduction.html#setting-base-version
Sharing a latest fiddle is not always what you wanted. Because anyone is able to save "latest" fiddle, someone would be able to change it to the content you wouldn't like to share. With setting a base version you are the person who chooses which version is shared under default "no version" URL.
First the question, then some background.
We're using Visual Studio 2008, C# 3.0 and .NET 3.5, and TFS 2008 as our VCS.
If I execute this command against our TFS database, to show information about a merge commit:
tf changeset 13469 /noprompt
I get output like this (redacted):
Changeset: 13469
User: Lasse
Date: 12. november 2010 14:06:06
Comment:
Some text here.
Items:
merge, edit $/path/to/target/filename.txt
... more merged files
... some blurb about reviewer texts, etc. nothing important/useful here
This was merged from a different path in the same database, but this information is not available here.
For instance, if I merged from $/path/to/main/ down to $/path/to/branch/, the path to the main project is not available in the merge changeset. (note, please don't say that I'm merging the wrong way, it doesn't matter in this case so I just made it simple.)
So, the question is this: Is there any way I can find out where that changeset was merged from? Which branch it came from? ... and which changeset it originated as in that branch (like 13468? 13462? 13453? ...)
Background
We haven't used much branching and merging so far, except for simple stuff like "tagging" a release.
From now on we're looking at using branching much more active, but this creates a challenge.
Let's say I open up our bug tracker, take the topmost bug, fixes it, and checks it in. This is done in one branch, let's say this is the master branch.
Now, at some point, a tester is going to verify that the hotfix we're going to release has this bug fixed, so he opens up our product and wants to verify before he starts that the bugfix has actually gone into this build.
When we didn't use branching, we simply took the changeset number of the commit that ultimately fixed a case and typed that into the case itself. Additionally, our product was built with a build-number (4th part of version number) identical to the changeset that was the latest changeset that became part of the build.
This way, the tester could simply look at the case, the version number and easily deduce if the build had that changeset or not. If the changeset number in the version number was equal to or higher than the one in the case, the changeset was part of that build.
With branches, that doesn't work. If I commit changeset X on the master branch, but forget to merge, the tester can't simply say "If I run version X or higher, I go that fix" any more.
Note that we're not using TFS work items, so there's no easy built-in way to link commits and cases.
The reason I asked about the TFS history output was that I assume that if I can see that changeset 13469 really came from another branch, and corresponds to changeset 13462 there, and the programmer has noted 13462 on the case, I can say "13462 is now part of the build, because it was merged to the right branch, became 13469, and the build output has version 13470."
In other words, I could build a tool that as part of the build looked at the history of the database and grabbed all the necessary information and stored it in a database, so that I could take cases on our ready-to-test list and compare against the version number of the executable the tester was running, and just list all cases that is both ready to test and part of that build.
So my question is really this: Does anyone have any hints to how we can solve this? Perhaps we're boneheaded and needs to be told the right way to do this, so if you got any good ideas, let me know.
I hear and feel your lament here, as we've run into the same limitation. With TFS 2008, there's no easy way to see that history. With TFS 2010, and the branch visualizer, it gets easier.
If this is something you really need, you could potentially write it yourself using the TFS API. You would have to walk your way back through the various changesets for the files. It would be relatively straightforward to code:
Get merge changeset
Get prior merge changeset
Determine merge source from the first changeset
Get history for the file between the dates of the two changesets.
I've done this manually before, but you could either do this in C# code, or, alternatively, write a PowerShell script to do this.
I am part of a software development company looking for a good way to update my SQL Server tables when I put out a new version of the software. I know the answer is to probably use scripts in one form or another.
I am considering writing my own .NET program that runs the scripts to make it a bit easier and more user-friendly. I was wondering if there are any tools out there along those lines. Any input would be appreciated.
Suggest you look at Red_gate's SQlCompare
What kind of product are you using for your software installation? Products like InstallShield often now include SQL steps as an option for part of your install script.
Otherwise, you could look at using isql/osql to run your script from the command line through a batch file.
One of the developers where I'm currently consulting wrote a rather nifty SQL installer. I'll ask him when he gets in how he went about it.
I am using Red Gate's SQL Compare all the time. Also you need to make sure to provide a rollback script in case you need to go back to the previous version.
Have a look at DB Ghost Packager Plus.
Packages your source database and the compare and sync engine into a simple EXE for deployment. The installer EXE will automatically update any target schema to match the source on-the-fly at installation time.
Red Gate's SQL Compare to generate the change script, and Red Gate's Multi Script to easily send it to multiple SQL databases at the same time.