Could you advise me what is the difference between Debug and Release folders?
Thanks
Furqan
The debug folder usually contains your program compiled for debugging, that is there is additional information included, such as variable names, that help you find errors in the program.
The release folder contains your program without any of that. Just what is necessary for the program to run.
Just to be clear, the name of the folders in your question are virtually unlimited (not simply limited to debug and release). Right click on your solution and select Configuration Manager and you can add as many configurations as you would like. The name of the configuration is the name of the folder.
As Joshua wrote, usually, people use their debug config to include things like the .pdb file (which includes debugging symbols needed to get line numbers from errors, etc.). Release is normally cleaner. However, you can easily setup folders for x86 vs. x64 vs. any cpu.
If you have a solution with 10 different projects (not uncommon if you work on something of decent size) you might want to build certain projects together and others together. In this case, you should create additional configurations to support this so you can build a group simply by changing your active configuration.
In the end, the folders you mentioned contain whatever you specify in the configuration manager that they should contain.
Related
My colleagues and I have user specific settings in csproj.user files. They are not checked into the repository. I would like for the build server to use its own set of csproj.user files, overriding certain properties, leaving the "base" project configuration at a decent developer default. But from the looks of it there is no such option in the msbuild command-line for doing that.
Is there really no way, other than copy csproj.user-files to where it'll be picked up by subsequent msbuild invocations?
While writing I realize I'm too much of a prude about these things and should just copy as a step prior build. Still posting in case someone knows a better way, for instance a way that does not modify the source tree.
Passing properties to the MSBuild command line overrides properties in the solution, including dependent projects. Here omitting debug information in build server, otherwise generated for release build to improve profiling:
msbuild MySolution.sln /p:DebugType=none ...
This does not work should I want different properties for different projects. Building projects individually should work nicely though.
Finally, passing arguments on command line can get messy, so to get a more "settings file"-like experience one may instead use #file arguments and MSBuild response files.
My goal is to create build definitions within Visual Studio Team Services for both test and production environments. I need to update 2 variables in my code which determine which database and which blob storage the environment uses. Up till now, I've juggled this value in a Resource variable, and pulled that value in code from My.Resources.DB for a library, and Microsoft.Azure.CloudConfigurationManager.GetSetting("DatabaseConnectionString") for an Azure worker role. However, changing 4 variables every time I do a release is getting tiring.
I see a lot of posts that get close to what I want, but they're geared towards C#. For reasons beyond my influence, this project is written in VB.NET. It seems I have 2 options. First, I could call the MSBuild process with a couple of defined properties, passing them to the .metaproj build file, but I don't know how to get them to be used in VB code. That's preferable, but, at this point, I'm starting to doubt that this is possible.
I've been able to set some pre-processor constants, to be recognized in #If-#Else directives.
#If DEBUG = True Then
BarStaticItemVersion.Caption = String.Format("Version: {0}", "1.18.0.xxx")
#Else
BarStaticItemVersion.Caption = String.Format("Version: {0}", "1.18.0.133")
#End If
msbuild CalbertNG.sln.metaproj /t:Rebuild /p:DefineConstants="DEBUG=False"
This seems to work, though I need to Rebuild to change the value of that constant. Should I have to? Should Build be enough? Is this normal, or an indication that I don't have something set quite right?
I've seen other posts that talk about pre-processing the source files with some other builder, like Ant, but that seems like overkill. It feels like I'm close here. But I want to zoom out and ask, from a clean sheet of paper, if you're given 2 variables which need to change per environment, you're using VB.NET, and you want to incorporate those variable values in an automated VS Team Services build process upon code check-in, what's the best way to do it? (I want to define the variables in the VSTS panel, but this just passes them to my builder, so I have to know how to parse the call to MSBuild to make these useful.)
I can control picking between 2 static strings, now, via compiler directives, but I'd really like to reference the Build.BuildNumber that comes out of the MSBuild process to display to the user, and, if I can do that, I can just feed the variables for database and blob container via the same mechanism, and skip the pre-processor.
You've already found the way you can pass data from the MsBuild Arguments directly into the code. An alternative is to use the Condition Attribute in your project files to make certain property groups optional, it allows you to even include specific files conditionally. You can control conditions by passing in /p:ConditionalProperty=value on the MsBuild command. This at least ensures people use a set of values that make sense together.
The problem is that when MsBuild is running in Incremental mode it is likely to not process your changes (as you've noticed), the reason for this, is that the input files remain unchanged since the last build and are all older than the last generated output files.
To by-pass this behavior you'd normally create a separate solution configuration and override the output location for all projects to be unique for that configuration. Combined with setting the Compiler constants for that specific configuration you're ensured that when building that Configuration/Platform combination, incremental builds work as intended.
I do want to echo some of the comments from JerryM and Daniel Mann. Some items are better stored in else where or updated before you actually start the compile phase.
Possible solutions:
Store your configuration data in config files and use Configuration Transformation to generate the right config file base don the selected solution configuration. The process is explained on MSDN. To enable configuration transformation on all project types, you can use SlowCheetah.
Store your ocnfiguration data in the config files and use MsDeploy and specify a Parameters.xml file that matches the deploy package. It will perform the transformation on deploy time and will actually allow your solution to contain a standard config file you use at runtime, plus a publish profile which will post-process your configuration. You can use a SetParameters.xml file to override the variables at deploy time.
Create an installer project (such as through Wix) and merge the final configuration at install time (similar to the MsDeploy). You could even provide a UI which prompts for specific values (and can supply default values).
Use a CI server, like the new TFS/VSTS 2015 task based build engine and combine it with a task that can search&replace tokens, like the Replace Tokens task, Tokenization Task, Colin's ALM Corner Build and Release Tasks. And a whole bunch that specifically deal with versioning. Handling these things in the CI server also allows you to do a quick build locally at all times and do these relatively expensive steps on the build server (patching source code breaks incremental build in MsBuild, because there are always newer input files.
When talking specifically about versioning, there are a number of ways to set the AssemblyVersion and AssemblyFileVersion just before compile time, usually it involves overriding the AssemblyInfo.cs file before compilation. Your code could then use reflection to read the value at runtime. You can use the AssemblyInformationalversion to specify something like you do in the example above which contains .xxx or other text. It also ensures that the version displayed always reflects the information obtained when reading the file properties through Windows Explorer.
This question is about the project command and, by extension, what the concept of a project means in cmake. I genuinely don't understand what a project is, and how it differs from a target (which I do understand, I think).
I had a look at the cmake documentation for the project command, and it says that the project command does this:
Set a name, version, and enable languages for the entire project.
It should go without saying that using the word project to define project is less than helpful.
Nowhere on the page does it seem to explain what a project actually is (it goes through some of the things the command does, but doesn't say whether that list is exclusive or not). The cmake.org examples take us through a basic build setup, and while it uses the project keyword it also doesn't explain what it does or means, at least not as far as I can tell.
What is a project? And what does the project command do?
A project logically groups a number of targets (that is, libraries, executables and custom build steps) into a self-contained collection that can be built on its own.
In practice that means, if you have a project command in a CMakeLists.txt, you should be able to run CMake from that file and the generator should produce something that is buildable. In most codebases, you will only have a single project per build.
Note however that you may nest multiple projects. A top-level project may include a subdirectory which is in turn another self-contained project. In this case, the project command introduces additional scoping for certain values. For example, the PROJECT_BINARY_DIR variable will always point to the root binary directory of the current project. Compare this with CMAKE_BINARY_DIR, which always points to the binary directory of the top-level project. Also note that certain generators may generate additional files for projects. For example, the Visual Studio generators will create a .sln solution file for each subproject.
Use sub-projects if your codebase is very complex and you need users to be able to build certain components in isolation. This gives you a very powerful mechanism for structuring the build system. Due to the increased coding and maintenance overhead required to make the several sub-projects truly self-contained, I would advise to only go down that road if you have a real use case for it. Splitting the codebase into different targets should always be the preferred mechanism for structuring the build, while sub-projects should be reserved for those rare cases where you really need to make a subset of targets self-contained.
I would like to add into project some files that shouldn't be compiled. I mean mainly text files with for example notes, concepts, comments etc.
I realized that it is possible only at module level. But it is not very convenient. I'd rather prefer to keep them on project level. Is it possible in any way?
And if not:
I have another idea: to create special module, name it for example "other_stuff", do not create src directory and put files there. Is it ok? I'm afraid of potential compilation problems when one of modules is artificial, with no sources but still has sdk assigned (it is probably impossible to leave module without sdk assigned).
While generating artifacts you can add any file into your artifact. Also, in modules you can have folders not declared as source, and they will not be compiled.
I am trying to clean up some of my projects, and one of the things that are puzzling me is how to deal with header files in static libraries that I have added as "project dependencies" (by adding the project file itself). The basic structure is like this:
MyProject.xcodeproj
Contrib
thirdPartyLibrary.xcodeproj
Classes
MyClass1.h
MyClass1.m
...
Now, the dependencies are all set up and built correctly, but how can I specify the public headers for "thirdPartyLibrary.xcodeproj" so that they are on the search path when building MyProject.xcodeproj. Right now, I have hard-coded the include directory in the thirdPartyLibrary.xcodeproj, but obviously this is clumsy and non-portable. I assume that, since the headers are public and already built to some temporary location in ~/Library (where the .a file goes as well), there is a neat way to reference this directory. Only.. how? An hour of Googling turned up blank, so any help is greatly appreciated!
If I understand correctly, I believe you want to add a path containing $(BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR) to the HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS in your projects build settings.
As an example, I took an existing iOS project which contains a static library, which is included just in the way you describe, and set the libraries header files to public. I also noted that the PUBLIC_HEADERS_FOLDER_PATH for this project was set to "/usr/local/include" and these files are copied to $(BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR)/usr/local/include when the parent project builds the dependent project. So, the solution was to add $(BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR)/usr/local/include to HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS in my project's build settings.
HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS = $(BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR)/usr/local/include
Your situation may be slightly different but the exact path your looking for can probably be found in Xcode's build settings. Also you may find it helpful to add a Run Script build phase to your target and note the values of various settings at build time with something like:
echo "BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR " $BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR
echo "HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS " $HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS
echo "PUBLIC_HEADERS_FOLDER_PATH " $PUBLIC_HEADERS_FOLDER_PATH
.
.
.
etc.
I think that your solution is sufficient and a generally accepted one. One alternative would be to have all header files located under an umbrella directory that can describe the interface to using the depended-on libraries and put that in your include path. I see this as being similar to /usr/include. Another alternative that I have never personally tried, but I think would work would be to create references to all the headers of thirdPartyLibrary from MyProject so that they appear to be members of the MyProject. You would do this by dragging them from some location into MyProject, and then deselecting the checkbox that says to copy them into the project's top level directory. From one perspective this seems feasible to me because it is as if you are explicitly declaring that your project depends on those specific classes, but it is not directly responsible for compiling them.
One of the things to be wary of when addressing this issue is depending on implementation-specific details of Xcode for locating libraries automatically. Doing so may seem innocuous in the meantime but the workflows that it uses to build projects are subject to change with updates and could potentially break your project in subtle and confusing ways. If they are not well-defined in some documentation, I would take any effect as being coincidental and not worth leveraging in your project when you can enforce the desired behavior by some other means. In the end, you may have to define a convention that you follow or find one that you adopt from someone else. By doing so, you can rest assured that if your solution is documented and reproducible, any developer (including yourself in the future) can pick it up and proceed without tripping over it, and that it will stand the testament of time.
The way we do it is to go into build target settings for the main project and add:
User Header Search Path = "Contrib"
and check that it searches recursively. We don't see performance problems with searching recursively even with many (10-15 in some projects) dependencies.