I am using Team Foundation Server (TFS) 2008, and am preparing to merge several TFS projects together, and I'd like to do this in the best way possible. All of these projects are within a single TFS instance.
I merging projects because the product line that is contained in all of the projects is small and is worked on by a single, small team, and so the projects themselves are simply unnecessary. Thus, I am trying to simplify our structure by merging the projects together. What this amounts to, I think, is a need to move the files from all projects into just one of the projects. But, I want to do this without affecting file history, etc.
I have tried researching this, and have found the following resources:
Moving files from one Team Foundation Project to Another
Moving files between projects in Solution Explorer removes source
control history, breaking merge capabilities
The second resource, a Microsoft knowledge base article, actually looks pretty useful. But, before I dive into this, I am just wondering what advice and/or warnings the SO community might offer? I am just hoping to go into this with my "eyes wide open."
Moves within Solution Explorer (and Solution Navigator from Productivity Power Tools) a move of a solution item will lead to a delete and add in version control.
But you can also move items either within Source Control Explorer or using tf.exe's move command from the command line. The latter can, of course, be automated with in a script if there are many items to move.
Related
I work on Labware LIMS, which has both configuration, and customization via its own programming language and internal code editor, and stores this customization code in database records. (Note, not the source code of the actual application itself, just the customization code a.k.a. LIMS Basic.) Almost everything in LIMS is stored in the database.
We want to investigate the possibility of using source control to protect this code but we don't know much more than the theory of using something like Git. (I have worked as a junior QA and used git but not as a dev and my knowledge is limited!)
Of particular use would be the merging tools, as currently we have to manually merge code in a text editor, if we even notice there is a conflict (checking content between dev and live is time consuming and involves using multiple tools, some of which are 3rd party tools we have developed ourselves, which are hit and miss. I personally find it easiest to cut and paste into a text file and then use Beyond Compare.
There is no notification that the code is different when moving it from dev to live (no deployment as such, you just import an xml file) so we often have things going live that someone was working on unbeknownst to each other. I.e. dev 1 is working on the code in object 1, dev 2 gets a ticket to make a change to object 1, does so and puts their change Live, whatever dev 1 was doing is now also Live in whatever state it was in. (Because we don't always have time to thoroughly check what state each object is in between up to 3 different databases.)
Is it possible to use source control just on the code within the database, but not necessarily the database itself? (We have backups and such for that but its easy for some aspects of the system to get overwritten by multiple devs working on overlapping areas at the same time.)
If anyone reading this has any specific knowledge of LW LIMS, we are referring to the Subroutines mostly, we have versioned Analyses which stands in for source control for the moment and is somewhat effective but no way to control who is doing what on the subroutines other than a comment log at the top. I have tried to find any information on how other teams source control their code in LIMS but to no avail.
The structure of one of these tables can range from as simple as the code just existing in one field as a straight text dump with a few other fields such as changed_on, changed_by and name (Subroutines), or more complex with code relating to one record being sprinkled around in multiple rows on another table entirely (Analyses) but even if it could just deal with the simple scenario to start with that would be great!
TL;DR: Could the contents of the Code field in a database record be treated like a regular code object in other dev environments somehow and source controlled using Git? (And is anyone willing to explain it simply for me to follow?)
As you need to version control table fields of subroutine, but LW LIMS doesn’t have the IDE for version control (such as git, svn etc). So the direct answer is no.
If you really want to do version control for the codes in database, you can create a git repository and only put the codes in git repository. when a file has updated, you can commit & push the changes. And it’s easy to compare the difference between versions.
More detail about git, you can refer git book.
LabWare LIMS has a number of options for version control. You COULD version the Subroutine table by adding a SUBROUTINE.VERSION field to the table, this works the same way as other versioned tables in LabWare where it asks you if you would like to create a new version of the object before saving. There are a few customers I work with that have done this.
Alternatively, (and possibly our more recommended method prior to LEM) there is the Snapshot capability where the system automatically takes a "snapshot" of objects as they are saved - when viewing these you have the ability to view them side by side in a comparison dialogue - it will show < or > for lines which are different.
Another approach is, if you have auditing turned on you are able to view the audit history for changes to specific objects - this includes subroutines.
One other approach is to use configuration packages - this has the ability to record version AND build numbers. Though individual subroutines is probably a bit too granular for it's intended design.
Lastly, since this question was originally posted we have developed a product called LabWare Environment Manager (LEM) which has some good change control functionality built-in.
For more information on the suggestions above, please have a look at the LabWare Technical manual for the version you are on. We also have a mailing list for questions like this to be posted. You might find an answer there. If you have access to our Support webpage you're able to search previous questions that have been asked. I'd also suggest that you get in touch with your Account Manager at LabWare who can help you answer some of your questions.
HTH
I'm trying to make a custom column (for a custom list), where the users can upload files without overwriting the previous - this way they can keep past versions of the files and upload newer ones and the new ones append. There already exist "append only" comment columns and file upload columns that I can see.
I'm working with Sharepoint designer 2007 (2010 doesn't work with the site), and I'm referencing this code I found online somewhere (http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=0qN89meu), trying to research the Sharepoint documentation on MSDN. I can open the site in designer, but don't know where to go from there (it's already running on a web server, not opening it locally).
I'm just not clear on how to start, I thought there'd be a simple "right+click -> new column" feature but I can't find it. If someone could point me in the right direction to where I could start creating columns on the site, that would be great. Thanks!
An untested idea :
Create a document library with a lookup column to the custom list.
Create an event receiver (ItemAdded and ItemUpdated) than will take the attached files and move them to the other list (with the correct lookup value). --> Code with Visual Studio
Grant to this document library only read permissions.
Adapt the view to display the related documents in the dispform of the custom list.
Advantages:
this seems to answer to your need
you gain all the usability of a document library (nothing prevent you to grant edit rights to other users, force check out, etc.)
Disadvantages:
you have to play with lookup. Can be tricky sometimes, if you play with features
you split one business entity to two entities. You will have to deal with cascading delete (if you need it).
We just recently switched from TFS to Mercurial for our small team. The main project that 3 people work on is a Windows Forms application in C#. Every time you use the designer, even for simple changes, it does a whole lot of rearranging and changing to the .Designer file. If two people work on this file, even making simple changes, the merge is an absolute nightmare. Is there an easy way to solve this problem? In TFS, we turned off concurrent edits so we did not have this problem.
The problem is every time the code gen engine may generate code in different order!!! which makes merging a pain.
WinForm (.NET) designer, Swing (Java) designer rely on the code gen engine.
ASP.NET's designer.cs only contains backing field, which less likely to suffer.
WPF's backing field is generated in obj/*.g.cs, which is not required to keep in source control, so no merging problem.
Merges of these kind of files are always painfull... This is the reason why some "locking" extensions for Mercurial exists, so you can have the same workflow as with TFS if needed.
For example you can use the Lock extension written by Martin Geisler to lock .Designer files until the next push, doing so you will avoid any concurrent modification thus avoiding the merge also.
This is what I do:
Copy/Use .Desinger.cs from master/develop branch and open project in VS
Copy whole project (all files with .git) and checkout your_feature branch and open project in VS
now at this point you should have 2 instances of VS (one on master branch and one on your_feature)
Copy controls (ctrl+c) (in design view/mode) from one VS to another
not perferct solution but helps a lot
I created a database for tracking metrics, with some automation tricks (email, .doc,.ppt presentations, etc) with a very large Main-table, and lots of forms/GUI. This is the first time I have ever I worried about an MDE/front-end for the thing. So if you would be so kind to answer a few questions, or offer any advice, it would be greatly appreciated (I would hate for all this work to not be utilized).
What is the first thing I need to do? It the 2000 version that must be converted to 03 to create the MDE, but does that get done before I use the database splitter?
Will the amount of objects in the database effect the ability to do this? I have something like 80 forms, 70 queries, 20+ macros, 12 tables, etc...but does the amount of objects prevent some of this from working well once the front end is there?
when i split the database, can I continue to work/make changes and such on the "back end", and have those changes directly effect the front end?
These may be some basic questions, but I don't know the answer so.....Thanks!
Here is my 2 ¢.
Question 1 - I have never used the database splitter as I feel I have more control doing it manually. If you do it manually you can do it to a version that does not have a database splitter. But if you do use the splitter then--yes--you will have to upgrade to a version that has a splitter before doing it.
To do it manually here are the steps.
Backup everything.
Create a copy of your file into the same directory. So if you have an MyApp.MDB create a copy into the same directory with a new name, such as MyAppDATA.mdb.
Open the new DATA file (MyAppDATA.mdb) and delete all of the objects EXCEPT the TABLES.
Open the App file (MyApp.mdb) and delete all of the tables.
Also in MyApp.mdb...go to the File/Get External Data/Link Tables menu to link the tables in MyAppDATA.mdb to MyApp.mdb. Select All and create the links.
That should do it. And if you screw up you made a backup...right?
A couple of tips and gotchas...be sure that you go to Tools/Options and that you are NOT showing System and Hidden tables. You just don't want to delete system tables from MyApp. Another way to do it is do NOT delete tables that start with MSys or USys.
Question 2 - Does not matter how many object you have. In fact you don't have that many objects anyway.
Question 3 - Yes...you will make backend changes in MyAppData.mdb and when you open MyApp.mdb those changes will auto-magically be there to see and query against etc. (In the query designer you may need to save/close/reopen to see new fields if you made the mod while in the query). The EXCEPTION to that is New Tables You will have to use the File/Get External Data/Link Tables option to create links to new tables.
One thing to remember (and that I hope you already realize) is that the one downside of splitting the database is that when you deploy the front end file that usually the relative path to the data will vary from machine to machine and there is no automatic re-linking of tables in access. If your target clients have full access you can always use Tools/Database Utilities/Linked Table Manager to refresh the links to the right location. If you can't do that then you will have to do one of the following:
1. Write code that does the automatic re-linking for you. Basically it will check the links...if invalid it will prompt the user for the data location (or look it up in an INI file) and re-link the tables.
2. Always deploy your app to the same location on all machines. If you have commercial visions for your application this won't work...I mention it for academic reasons. It might be doable for a limited deployment where you have a lot of control over file placement on each machine.
3. Put the Data file (MyAppDATA.mdb) onto a network share and link the table across the network using a drive mapping or UNC (\myserver\mydata\ApplicationData\MyAppData.mdb). The latter is preferred but both of them run the same risks as number two.
Seth
PS This answer assumes Access 2003.
PPS If you have commercial visions for your application then the table linking has got to be REALLY robust.
PPPS I agree with the commenter that you may want to take the plunge and do SQL if it is in your skill set.
One thing that hasn't been discussed, and that's the issue of whether the compile to MDE could fail. Basically, if your code compiles in your front-end MDB, it will convert to an MDE. But I've noticed that lots of people never compile.
Some hints for keeping your VBA code in good shape:
in VBE options, turn off COMPILE ON DEMAND.
add the COMPILE button to your standard VBE toolbar and USE IT OFTEN.
periodically, backup your MDB and decompile/recompile it.
Also, remember that you must keep the MDB source, as the VBA code is not editable in an MDE and not recoverable by any good method.
EDIT:
Steps for a decompile:
backup your MDB.
start an instance of Access with the /decompile commandline argument. For, instance, I have a shortcut on my deskstop that has this as the target:
"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSACCESS.EXE" /decompile
having opened that instance of Access, open the MDB you want to decompile. You will see nothing happen. DO NOTHING FURTHER IN THIS INSTANCE OF ACCESS -- close this instance of Access (the reason for this is that Michael Kaplan, who knows a thing or two about this, recommended that you never do any work in an Access instance opened with the decompile switch because he said there was no guarantee that the Access application code executed under those circumstances in a way that was fully safe for all kinds of Access work).
open the just-decompiled MDB holding down the shift key (you want to be sure that startup routines don't run because that would likely recompile the product before you've finished your cleanup) and compact the MDB (holding down the shift key again).
open the code editor and compile the project (DEBUG -> COMPILE [db name] for those who haven't step #2 in my original compiling instructions at the top of the post before the edit).
compact the MDB (doesn't matter if you bypass startup, since it's already fully compiled).
Why so many steps?
Because the purpose of the decompile is to get rid of the compiled p-code in order to start afresh from the canonical VBA code. Following the steps above insures that you have completely cleared the data pages storing the compiled code before you recompile. The reason for this is that without the compact step after the decompile, under some very rare circumstances, the code can behave strangely. I can't imagine that the old discarded p-code is being used again, but there's something about the pointers between the canonical code and the compiled code that apparently doesn't get completely flushed by a decompile without a compact.
This would be a comment to Seth's answer, but my rep isn't high enough to comment yet.
Seth did a great job answering your questions, I just wanted to add a bit more to part #1 about using the Database Splitter. The Database Splitter in the Tools menu works fine. Doing it manually is alright too, but it's a whole lot faster and easier to use the Database Splitter. I've used it a dozen times and never encountered any issues after using it.
http://www.databasedev.co.uk/split_a_database.html has a decent page about some of the pros, cons of splitting your database.
http://www.accessmvp.com/TWickerath/articles/multiuser.htm also has some good info when dealing with a split database in a multi-user environment.
Seth gave you a very good answer. But I'll add a few comments.
The number of objects only becomes relevant when you get close to about 1000 forms, reports and modules which have code. There's a limit about there. If you do get that message when trying to make an MDE then you almost certainly have a code error and need to compile to find the error
Another resource is "Splitting your app into a front end and back end Tips"
See the Auto FE Updater downloads page to make the process of distributing new FEs relatively painless.. The utility also supports Terminal Server/Citrix quite nicely.
I need to learn more about creating setup projects from within Visual Studio to support the following scenario:
When the user starts the setup, he needs to choose between the parts that he wants to set up. The setup should offer to install three web services, one web site and maybe even run some SQL scripts to install/update the database.
During installation, the user will need to tell where he wants the sites/services to be installed within IIS. He also needs to specify the database connection which is used within the services/sites and to update the database. And there will probably be a few other wishes too. It should also support an uninstall of the site and services, but the database can continue to exist.
Is this even possible with the Setup projects that Visual Studio creates? If not, no worries. I don't need an alternative solution! I just need to know if this is possible before trying myself and discovering it's not possible after weeks of trying... This is for an internal project and I want to make life easier for the administrators who need to install/upgrade these sites/ services every time when there's an update. (About once every two weeks.)
Stay well away from vdproj stuff and move to WiX ASAP (As you'll see me being advised in questions I asked here). For a start, flexibility around where to put the IIS apps is seriously limited (you get one virtual dir and the user can only choose the name, you cant have multiple instances).
The other side of this is of course that the vdproj stuff is an 80% solution. Ultimately you can add as many custom steps as you like, and they can pop up dialogs and whatever they like. There's no reason why a custom step cant do all the things you want.
I just know that I once thought like you, and looking back wish someone had grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and said, just use the proper stuff - even if it seems a little harder initially. There is a conversion tool that will suck in your vdproj and spit you out a WiX.
By all means, try wizarding up what you need and seeing if it works - most of the stuff is pretty searchable - just know when to call it quits.