There is for example a DatePicker and a Calendar control in the main package (office-ui-fabric-react) and in the date-time package as well (installed as #uifabric/date-time). Both APIs seem to be nearly identical, but differ in some properties. For example in Calendar the calendarDayProps property (requested in this issue) is missing in the main package, but only available in the date-time package. I only found this out by searching through the github issues, because there is no official documentation available for the date-time package. The documentation page available only refers to the main package version.
On the other hand, in the already closed issue, it is nowhere mentioned, that this fix only applies to the date-time package version, as if this should be clear somehow. I feel that I missed some information.
So what's the point here? Will the date-time package version at some point in time replace the main package version? Are they intended to be used interchangeably? Why is there no documentation on this? I'm really confused ...
For a long time, I have been very successful at non-invasively customizing many .NET Framework builds by setting CustomBeforeMicrosoftCommonTargets and CustomAfterMicrosoftCommonTargets as environment variables in a command-line shell that corresponds to a given development/build workspace.
I would set these environment variables to point to custom msbuild targets files that would then be automatically imported (before and after respectively) the import of the standard Microsoft provided targets files. This has worked great for a long time, but now .NET Core comes along and I find no mechanism quite like that.
I am aware of Directory.Build.props and that does not appear to be equivalent. For one, it is invasive requiring me to add a file to a source tree that I don't want to necessarily touch in order to customize its build (maybe its an open source project and I don't want to be injecting new files into it). For two, it doesn't provide the dual Before/After import hooks which are very important (if this duality weren't important Microsoft would never have provided it).
I also don't like dropping magic files in magic global locations as my build policies/customizations are themselves versioned source code which can vary from one developer workspace to another (even on the very same machine for the very same developer).
It seems odd that Microsoft would fail to retain such a long-standing and fundamentally useful msbuild customization capability in .NET Core. Am I missing an equivalently powerful, easy to use and non-invasive mechanism? Is it there and I just haven't found it?
CustomBeforeMicrosoftCommonTargets and CustomAfterMicrosoftCommonTargets are still part of MSBuild 15 which is included in VS 2017 and the .NET Core SDK.
Setting them as global variables will still import them and override the default locations used if not set. Use the /bl argument to generate a binary build log and the MSBuild structured log viewer to diagnose issues you may have with it.
I have been reading about semver. I really like the general idea. However, when it comes to putting it to practice, I feel like I'm missing some key pieces of information. I'm not sure where the name of a library exists, or what to do with file variants. For instance, is the file name something like [framework]-[semver].min.js? Are there popular JavaScript frameworks that use semver? I don't know of any.
Thank you!
Let me try to explain you.
If you are not developing a library that you like to keep for years to come, don't bother about it.. If you prefer to version every development, read the following.
Suppose you are an architect or developer developing a library that is aimed to be used by hundreds of developers over time, in a distributed manner. You really need to be cautious of what you are doing, what your developers are adding (so interesting features that grabs your attention to push those changes in the currently distributed file). You dont know how do you tell your library users to upgrade. In what scenarios? People followed some sort of versioning, and interestingly, their thoughts all are working fine.
Then why do you need semver ?
It says "There should be a concrete specification for anything for a group of people to follow anything collectively, even though they know it in their minds". With that thought, they made a specification. They have made their observation and clubbed all the best practices in the world about versioning software mainly, and given a single website where they listed them. that is semver.org. Its main principles are :
Imagine you have already released your library with a version "lib.1.0.98", Now follow these rules for subsequent development.
Let your library is bundled and named as xyz and,
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, (like xyz.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH), increment the:
1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes
(existing code of users of your library breaks if they adapt this without code changes in their programs),
2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner
(existing code works, and some improvements in performance and features also), and
3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.
If you are not a developer or are not in a position to develop a library of a standard, you need not worry at all about semver.
Finally, the famous [d3] library follows this practice.
Semantic Versioning only defines how to name your versions. It does not specify what you will do with your version number afterwards. You can put the version numbers in package names, you can store it in a properties file inside your application, or just publish it in a wiki. All those options are opened to discussion and not part of the problem space addressed by SemVer.
semver is used by npm and bower (and perhaps some other tools) for dependency management. Using semver it is possible to decide which versions of which packages to use if multiple libraries used depend on the same library.
As others have said, semantic versioning is a standard versioning scheme that tells your users which versions of your library should be compatible with each other, and which ones are not.
The idea, is to be able to give your users more confidence that it's safe to upgrade to a newer patch/version, because it's tried, tested, and true to being backwards compatible with the previous version (minor increments). That is, perceptively that's what your telling your users.
As far as tooling goes, I don't do much in javascript, but I typically let my build server handle stamping my assemblies etc with the correct version. I have a static major number I upgrade whenever I make breaking changes, a static minor number I upgrade everytime I add new features, and an auto-incrementing Patch number whenever I checkin bug fixes.
Especially if this is a javascript library you plan to share on a public repository of some kind (nuget, gem, etc) you probably want some for of automated packaging system, and you put the logic in there for specifying your version number (in the package meta data, in the name of the javascript file, which is typically the standard I've seen).
Take a look at sbt which is the Scala Build Tool. In it, we write dependencies like this:
val scalatest = "org.scalatest" %% "core" % "2.1.7" "test"
val jodatime = "org.joda" % "jodatime" % "1.4.5"
Wherein the operator %% means "the current version of Scala that you're building." Packaging things in this language generally create JAR files with the name like this <my project>_<scala version>_<library version>.jar which is quite handy for semantically naming things automagically. The % operator can be interpreted as "don't version this part."
That said, this resulted from the fact that the same library compiled to different Scala versions were not binary compatible with each other. So it was more as a result of, rather than a conscious design choice, the binary incompatibilities.
In a POM-file i found a "maven-ear-plugin" configuration that uses "defaultJavaBundleDir", but it seems that "defaultLibBundleDir" is the correct (according to the schema and various documentation).
The Maven POM schema is version 4.0.0.
Is this a remnant from an older version? I couldn't find an explanation for this change, and would like to make sure we are using the correct notation reliably.
In a POM-file i found a "maven-ear-plugin" configuration that uses "defaultJavaBundleDir", but it seems that "defaultLibBundleDir" is the correct (according to the schema and various documentation).
Actually, the configuration element of a plugin can contain anything. So <foo>bar</foo> is valid (and will just be "ignored" by a given plugin if it's an unknown parameter).
Is this a remnant from an older version? I couldn't find an explanation for this change, and would like to make sure we are using the correct notation reliably.
This change has been introduced for the resolution of MEAR-46 as we can read in the (approximative) comment of the svn commit: r471886.
Added defaultLibDir as an alias of defaultJavaBundleDir which is more understable
If you look closer at the diff, you'll see that defaultLibBundleDir is the new name of the parameter and that the old defaultJavaBundleDir is declared as an alias.
So both work, both do the same thing, but only the "new" one is documented in the parameters list of the ear mojo. You can safely change to defaultLibBundleDir and this will make things more clear.
Also worth noting is that the Maven Integration for WTP eclipse plugin (m2e-wtp) only supports the documented defaultLibBundleDir option, not the older defaultJavaBundleDir.
https://github.com/eclipse/m2e.wtp/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=defaultLibBundleDir
https://github.com/eclipse/m2e.wtp/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=defaultJavaBundleDir
I want to remove AssemblyInfo.cpp, because of some metadata errors that sometimes come up.
Is AssemblyInfo.cpp useful for anything? Or can it be removed without any problem?
I've discovered one distinction for this file: it has to do with values reported under calls to Assembly.GetReferencedAssemblies. I was working on tracking version numbers of our binaries from our SVN repository by embedding the revision numbers into them. Initially I too was updating AssemblyInfo.cpp and found nothing reported in the file property details tab for the binary. It seemed this file did nothing for me in terms of updating those details, which was not the case with similar updates to a csproj's AssemblyInfo.cs. Why the difference right?
Now in one such csproj we happen to reference a vcxproj and that csproj dumps to a log the versions of all its referenced assemblies using the .NET Assembly.GetReferencedAssemblies method. What I discovered was that the number that was being reported in that log was not the vcxproj's version as given by the VS_VERSIONINFO resource I added (which does get the version details into the file properties details tab). Instead the number reported was actually matching that defined in the AssemblyInfo.cpp.
So for vcxproj files it looks like VS_VERSIONINFO is capable of updating the contents you find under the file properties details tab but AssemblyInfo.cpp is capable of exposing the version to GetReferencedAssemblies. In C# these two areas of reporting seem to be unified. Maybe there's a way to direct AssemblyInfo.cpp to propagate into the file details in some fashion, but what I'm going to wind up doing is duplicating the build info to both locations in a prebuild step. Maybe someone can find a better approach.
So far I never had the AssemblyInfo.cpp in my managed c++ dlls, so I don't think it is necessary.
(I just added the file to have version information for my c++ dlls).
Why not just fix the errors? On that note, what errors are you getting?
This file provides information such as a version number which is definitely needed in order to use the assembly you have built.