In a simple IntelliJ module, I just want to generate a .jar file with my .class files, via IntelliJ IDE commands.
Please be careful before marking this as a "duplicate":
Although I've seen Google and Stack hits with promising titles, I'm not finding a really good answer, or the title is misleading, or its an unanswered question. I cover one possible answer that I've seen before (below), and why I don't think it's a match.
I've used Eclipse in the past, but I'm rather new to IntelliJ.
I've worked with the "Project Structure / Artifacts" stuff. I can generate the giant jar, similar to using "shade", but it's huge because it includes all the nested dependencies. We want the small jar with just this module's class files because the system we're deploying to already has all the other jars in place.
I've seen some references to changing a target directory in the Artifacts dialog box, but it then talks about references being made in the Manifest file, which I don't want. The destination environment already has its java paths setup, so I'm worried that having jar references in this jar will mess that up. If this really is the answer then I'm confused about how it works.
Constraint 1: Can't use command line tools, since I'm actually walking somebody else through these steps, who likely doesn't have command line tools installed in the path, or wouldn't know how to use them, etc. They're not a coder. (Yes, I know this sounds like an odd scenario; I inherited this situation.)
Constraint 2: We want to keep this as a simple IntelliJ project, vs. converting to Maven or Ant or Gradle, etc.
Coworker had the fix.
Short Answer:
Remove all of the other jars/libraries from Output Layout tab of the Artifacts config dialog.
Longer Answer:
You still do File / Project Structure...
Then in the Project Settings, click Artifacts.
And then you still click the plus button (second column) ti create a new artifact setting.
The trick is the "Output Layout" tab in the third column of the window. Highlight all entries EXCEPT the compiled output of your project and delete all those other entries (click the minus button under that tab, directly above your_project.jar)
On my laptop this causes it to pause for a few seconds; I thought it didn't do anything, then finally it reflected that everything was gone except "'my_module' compile output"
Also check the "Build on make" (for when you later do Build / Rebuild Project)
If you need both a full jar and a slim jar, you can have more than one Artifact configuration with different names, and they will default to different output directories.
Related
By default, IntelliJ IDEA puts Kotlin source files for package foo in src/*.kt but Gradle isn't happy with that; it can only see them if they go in src/main/kotlin/foo/*.kt.
I've tried moving them there, but now IDEA gives a warning in my source files, in the package foo line, saying 'package directive doesn't match file location' and wanting to change the package to main.kotlin.foo (which of course would be incorrect, and probably confuse Gradle again).
How do you get the two to agree on where the files should go? (Ideally I would like it to be somewhere that doesn't have any levels of empty subdirectories, but I will settle for anything the two programs can agree on.)
It turns out that if you just delete the IDEA configuration, IDEA will automatically rebuild it from the Gradle project, and thereby become happy with the Gradle default layout.
I love the JetBrains tools. But, I can't find a way to effectively share settings at the IDE level and the project level with team members. To date, I've followed instructions provided by an article on the JetBrains site, titled "How to manage projects under Version Control Systems". But, many comments on the article warn against implementing it as a method for sharing project settings. And I've run into a few issue with the method, namely not everything I'd like to be shared, is actually shared with team members.
I've also tried using the function found under the File->Settings Repository menu of the JetBrains tools. It shares some settings between users, and I like that it automatically creates commits to the Git repo, but it doesn't share all the settings. The settings that are shared work great! But, it seems like the "Settings Repository" feature is a work in progress.
I've read many discussions on this topic, but no definitive answer on a way to share IDE level settings and, at the same time, project specific settings when using the JetBrains tools. Not to mention, I use a multiple JetBrains tools (PhpStorm, PyCharm, WebStorm and IntelliJ). I'd like it if there were a solution that also shared settings between all the tools, because some settings are global across all JetBrains tools, some are specific to a particular tool, and some are specific to a project.
Sharing settings between JetBrains tools is more of a "nice to have". What I really need to know is, how can I share global IDE settings and project level settings easily between team members. But, I'll give mad respect points to anyone who can figure out both. :-)
I finally found a few minutes to write up an answer to this. I want to write up a more complete answer, but I've been incredibly busy lately so this will have to do for now.
This solution describes what I've been using to share code and settings of PyCharm projects. There is one caveat to this solution, which I'll attempt to describe and detail a work-around for.
Following the instructions on JetBrain's knowledge-base, we'll add the entire project folder to a Git repo. But, before doing so, be sure to exclude at least the workspace.xml file by creating a .gitignore file in the project directory and add at least the following line:
.idea/workspace.xml
# JetBrains also recommends adding tasks.xml, but I found it useful to
# share tasks with team members.
# Uncomment the following line to avoid sharing tasks with team members
# .idea/tasks.xml
You'll definitely want to add workspace.xml to .gitignore because it stores all of your local window sizes, debug panel layouts and the like. My team found it useful to syncronize our tasks, so that we could coordinate work. But, every team works differently, so use your own discretion.
There are three main locations project and personal preferences are stored:
<project_directory>/.idea contains project specific settings.
$HOME/.PyCharmYYYY.M/config contains options for all projects managed by PyCharm (or substitue "PyCharm" for any other JetBrains tool).
If you use the shared settings found in File->Settings Repository, $HOME/.PyCharmYYY.M/config will contain all of the settings shared via JetBrain's built in "shared settings" function. I and my team didn't care for it, because it seemed to automatically share some things we didn't want to (like the color theme, and key mappings). And we weren't able to select a sub-set of options to share team-wide. Long story short, it didn't give us the flexibility and control we need.
We did try using options 1 and 3 at the same time, but it was too unwieldy. For example, one person would change a font, and it would change it for the whole team the next time we re-launched JetBrains. It was a mess. If you do decide to try out using options 1 and 3, I recommend proceeding with extreme caution.
Presently, we are using only option 1, and it's working out quite nicely.
A few other notable folders you might want to add or remove from the .gitignore file are:
<project_folder>/.idea/runConfigurations/ contains all of your debug and run configurations used to run nose tests and debug into your code.
<project_folder>/.idea/scopes/ contains all of the scopes used to filter your view of the project files, into more management groupings.
$HOME/.PyCharmYYYY.M/options contains all of the global options for version of PyCharm you're using. For example, the color scheme, key mappings and any other non-project specific options. For a full list of other global settings, see this JetBrains article, or the following excerpt:
Scripts and styles for the project I'm working on get compiled and minified into single (enormous) files when the project is built. When IntelliJ goes to index everything, it spends a significant amount of time indexing the minified files, which are all but useless for the purpose of searching.
Is there a way to ignore specifically these files, and not just a directory?
I'm taking mostly a guess here, IntelliJ docs are notorious for being not-so-helpful on some topics.
Try marking the files as plain text:
When a file is marked as plain text, IntelliJ IDEA does not use it anymore for code completion and navigation...The reverse action is also available: you can return a file to its original type, using the Mark as action
Edit: After hearing that your files are dynamically created, I think I may have figured out a solution.
IntelliJ allows for the creation of Scopes, which allow you to exclude certain files from the project. You can then go to Editor -> Inspections and change the scope of each inspection from All Scopes to your new scope
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.
An iPad project I have been working on has become bloated with a huge number of files. The application is a prototype and we are considering ways to prevent this when we rewrite it.
One of the members of our team suggests dividing all of the components into separate Xcode projects which will be included in a master Xcode project.
Is this a good idea? What are the reasons, if any, to avoid dividing features/components/controls into separate Xcode projects?
You can add a subsidiary project file to a master project file in Xcode. Just choose "Add File" and add it. When Xcode builds the master it will build the subsidiary as well if needed.
I use a similar system. I often break a project into sub projects just so I can focus on and enforce encapsulation. I write the data model first, then add the app delegate, then specific UI elements. I add each project to the next in turn. This also allows me to go back and change things without as much risk of breaking.
Really, a properly designed objective-c app should be easy to decompose into multiple project. Ideally, all the components are so encapsulate that they don't need any others save the data model.
We have put some of the code in its own project, building a framework which we link against at some of the other projects. It's sometimes annoying that you won't see the implementation files of the framework code right away in another project (by cmd+clicking or cmd+shift+D, or whatever you do normally to navigate). Xcode will only show you the header, you'll have to open the other project and find your file there manually. Not a big deal, but if you look up the code often, it will bother you.
A real problem is that you change the scope of some operations. Stuff like "Find in project" will work on a different file set, which might not be what you want sometimes (trying to find where this method is called / key is used in your whole code, or something); well, there remains Finder / find, so it might be okay. Refactoring is not - all the renaming stuff just breaks, as it will change only the code of the current project, but not of projects referencing this one. If you change interfaces often, better avoid splitting up the project.
A good thing is that you will get less conflicts on your .xcodeproj files (if stored in a shared repository) as someone removing a file from project X won't create a conflict with someone else adding a target on project Y, which where previously the same .xcodeproj (not exactly sure this is a conflict case, but there definitely are some).
Now with Xcode4 you can create a workspace and add all your projects there. Only for documentation purpose :)
To view and modify subproject implementation files, you should add the sub projects directly into the main project.
1 step - Drag and drop the .xcode project files to main project.
2 step - Go to main project TARGETS - > Build Phases. Add subproject target in Target Dependencies. You can also add binary files in Link Binary With Libraries.
3 step - Add subproject source path to main projects header search path.
Go to main project - > Build Settings - > Header Search Paths (e.g $(SRCROOT)/../CoconutKit-master/CoconutKit/Sources )
An Xcode project can have any number of build targets within it, and you can arbitrarily group source files into folders. What makes you think that multiple projects are necessary?