I have to create a new project using the existing branch of another project. In a new workspace, I have imported the existing project, renamed it and synchronized it. When I do that it shows the below issue.
I have tried updating the UUID's for almost every rule, ruleflow, decision operation, deployment configuration, folder. Still, I see the same issue.
Related
What I am looking for is a master package/Sdk that defines my features, now I have various build version of this Sdk with customized features, now whenever I add a new feature to the master, it automatically reflects in the other build versions, I might have a lot of versions of it in the near future so the idea of keeping different repos/branches then merging them, later on, can turn into a nightmare( I do this right now).
I have thought of creating a configuration based system but as the sdk grows maintaining those configuration files will be a bigger challange than merging projects.
Android does something like this, example
I have my MainActivity( the top level file)
and I have a build version which has its own customized MainActivity
now When I update my top-level file, I see those changes in my build file too.
Note: All features added will not raise merge conflicts(As long as I am not updating old features). Any suggestion, StackOverflow reading recommendation will help.
In our current dev. workflow there is main database --> DbMain. There is the process that takes the latest version of the project and automatically deploys it there and after that it triggers unit tests. As we would like to always have working version of the project in the source control each developer should be sure that he checks in the working code and all tests would be passed.
For this purpose we decided to create individual databases for each developers that has following naming convention --> DbMain_XX (where XX are the developers initial). So every developer before the check-in is suppose to publish all the changes to that database manually and run the unit tests. It is useful to setup publish config for this purpose with that is the copy of the main publish config with the only difference in the database names.
That would introduce that we will have a lot of different publish profiles in the solution that is quite a mess.
If we will not add these profiles to the source control, then .sqlproj file would still have reference to these files so the project will have reference to the not existing files.
So the actual question. Can I have single publish profile for all developers where the database name will be changed using variables? For example DbName_$(dev_initials)? Or can we have that each developer would have their own publish configs only locally and it wouldn't break the project?
UPDATE:
According to the Peter Schott comments:
I can create local publish profile, but if I don't add it to the source control, then the still be an entry in sqlproj file, but the file itself will be unavailable.
Running tests locally have at least 2 disadvantages. The first one is that everybody is supposed to install SQL Server locally. We are mainly working via virtual machines and the disk space is quite limited there. Another thing is that developers will definitely forget or not will not run tests manually every time. Sometimes they will push changes to the repo without building it or/and running tests. We would like to avoid such situations and "catch" failed build as soon as possible.
Another approach that was mentioned is to have 1 common build database. And in my case we have one (DbMain). All of developers can use it for it's needs but we will definitely catch the situation when the 2 developers will publish at the same time and that can make a lot of confusion by figuring out what's really went wrong.
A common approach to this kind of thing - not only for SSDT publish profiles but for config files in general - is to commit a generic version of the file with a name something like DbMain.publish.xml.template, and provide instructions to the developer to rename the file to DbMain.publish.xml - or whatever - and .gitignore this local copy of the file, allowing the developers to make whatever changes they want, but inherit the common settings from the .template version of the file.
Publish profiles don't need to be added to the .sqlproj to be used at deploy time, this is merely a convenience in Visual Studio to make them easier to find and edit, so you don't need to worry about broken references.
You are right in wanting to avoid multiple developers publishing to a common "build" database, this is a recipe for frustration.
Really, you want the "build" database to be published to as part of your CI process, meaning after the developers have pushed their changes.
With a 2012 SSDT database project and a Integration Services project within it using project deployment model, after a build, a .ispac file is not created for me. Is there a setting or option that is necessary to allow this to be created?
The project builds successfully, and successfully creates the .dacpac file too. Building from the solution or individual project, the .dacpac file is created, and I see both projects are built successfully when built from the solution. I can also successfully create a .SSISDeploymentManifest file too. Of course, the run the all the packages without error as well.
Also, the Non-Default Properties Report shows only MaxConcurrentExecutables and EnableConfigurations for project level properties have non default values.
I feel like there is something small I'm missing. Any help is appreciated.
If a package is converted to use the package deployment model, a .ispac is not created when the project is built. It is only created when the project is using the project deployment model. The answer was in the question the entire time...
I have a module in production that I would like to upgrade with out losing any data. I can't find any documentation on how to write an upgrade package though. My change involves upgrading my table.
That depends on how you originally developed the module.
If you by chance used my module templates, it is super easy.
Create a new SQL script (.sqldataprovider), this script should be only the CHANGES not recreating the same table. So if you added a column, the script should check if that column exists already, if not, add it to the table. If adding procedures, it should check if the proc exists, drop the original one and create it again (or you could use alter)
Include a reference to that and the version number for that in your .DNN manifest file.
Change your Version number in assemblyinfo.cs
Change your version number in the DNN file for the module's version.
Package the module in "release" mode again.
If not, you'll have to do all the above steps, but step #5 would be where you have to manually package the module into a ZIP file.
I made a simple CMS with CakePHP to handle a small (but growing) number of websites. The CMS is constantly evolving as I regularly add features to a development version on my own machine.
I use SVN to trace the evolution of this development version, and that's pretty much it. To make a new website, I basically copy/paste the dev folder and modify the necessary files before uploading the new website by FTP.
One problem is in the end, every website installation is independent and if I want to add some new features to existing websites, I have to copy files by hand.
Another problem is that some websites have modified versions of the CMS because of specific needs: some controller classes have specific methods not present on the local version.
To sum it up:
I have one base CakePHP app regularly evolving
There are multiple versions (=websites) of this app already installed on different servers
Some websites have custom code included not present in the base version
I want to be able to easily update all the present and future websites when I improve the base app, without breaking some possible specific parts
Knowing it's a CakePHP app, what would you do? How should I change my code to manage at the same time the core and the specific code?
Thanks in advance!
... some controller classes have specific methods not present on the local version.
You might also consider the option of setting up additional class paths within each of your website applications. You can tell CakePHP to check other directories entirely for files missing from the current application. For example, you could have the following directory structure:
/app1 - a standard client's website application
/app2
/app3 - a custom client's website application (with custom controller)
/core - the core CMS application
/cake
By adding the following to your /appN/config/bootstrap.php files, you are telling CakePHP to look for controllers in /core/controllers if it can't find one it's looking for in the current application.
App::build(array(
'controllers' => array(ROOT . DS . 'core' . DS . 'controllers' . DS),
));
This would, for example, allow you to put all your CMS controllers in /core/controllers and delete all your /appN/controllers directories. Only where a client needed a controller customized (ie. /app3 above) would you create a controllers directory, copy the specific controller across and make modifications (adding methods and such).
(This is the approach the developer of Wildflower CMS took - note the /wildflower directory.)
Using version control software (like SVN) would probably do the trick for you. Each website you work on could be a branch that follows the main branch of development. Every time you make a change that you want to apply to every site, you'd update the main branch and then have every sub branch import the changes from the main branch.
Mind you, I'm more used to how Git works, so this scenario might work better in Git than in SVN, ymmv.