situation:
we have multiple feature branches, one main branch;
one particular project has multiple XML files, key-value pairs for different languages;
only one person doing translation, not programmer, but an analyst;
we use feature branches to separate features and scope of testing; different QA is responsible for testing on different branch for different user story.
when a user story is done, we merge the feature branch up, and sync down to other sub branches
those language XML files are large, say, roughly a few hundred key-value pairs in each.
challenges:
challenges come when multiple feature branches need translation, and the translation changes are done in the same file, say Japanese;
QA occasionally files a translation bug fixed in another branch;
the analyst is confused which branch to work on;
very high chance when merging, one version overwrites another version; because when we merge from a branch, the default logic in TFS takes the newer version to overwrite it. Most of time it works fine, but in some cases it failed, which increases the complexity of merging.
of course those challenges are manageable.
But ideally, I really think those static files should belong to one place instead of feature branches, so all feature branches share the same translation pack.
I could use an internal nuget source to host the language files, but it will increase the work every time we make a small translation change.
or I could setup TFS to use relative path, but then I need to update build definition in the build server and make sure the local build can grab the correct file.
Is there any other recommendation?
Thanks
If you have any shared internal libraries then create NuGet packages should be a good way , and you can also create a vs solution just containing that library.
For XAML build, add a post build command to create the nuget package, or extend your tfs build template to do it (there's a number of templates out there that already do this).
For VNext build, there is a new VSTS Task called "NuGet Installer" this allows you to check in your NuGet.config file and specify the different package sources. Run this task before you run MSBuild. More details please refer: How to get TFS2015 Build (Build.vnext) and NuGet package restore to use custom package sources
Moreover, I think if your product or app haven't been published to user, the update changes of translation could not be so frequently. After all, just some translation and language packages. You could update it once or twice during an iteration.
Related
Is there a way in TFS 2012 to set Project (not .csproj projects but TFS projects) build priority?
Currently we have many projects in TFS, one of which is a core project that many other projects reference. If someone checks in changes to both core and another project at once, the core project build doesn't always kick off first (I think they build in alphabetical order). It would be nice to be able to set the core project as the highest priority so that its build always runs first when changes to multiple projects are checked in. Is this possible?
There is no way to set the default build priority for a Build Definition. Since a Build Definition isn't bound to a Team project, but to a collection, there is also no way to configure the Queue to pick up builds from one Team Project before any others.
What you can do is to set a tag on an agent and then assign that tag to the build you want to take precedence. This will exclusively reserve the Build Agent to that specific build definition, causing it to jump in the queue.
Is there a way in TFS 2012 to set Project (not .csproj projects but TFS projects) build priority?
A project in TFS is quite a loose term which does not correspond to a VS project, it's actually used to refer to a product which can contain many branches. The high level project management tools then operate on the TFS "project".
If someone checks in changes to both core and another project at once, the core project build doesn't always kick off first (I think they build in alphabetical order).
Nope, assuming you don't have a custom build then they (the VS projects) don't build in alphabetic order at all, they build in order of dependency. Solutions are built in the order they are returned from the evaluation of the $(SolutionsToBuild) property (this does a wildcard search of the filesystem for .sln files, so maybe that's where your alphabetic observation comes from). Note that dependencies are evaluated on projects within a solution, there is no evaluation of dependencies across solutions.
For the following statements I'm going to assume that you have standard CI style builds gated upon checkin.
If a developer checks in everything at once then the checkin will happen as an atomic unit of work and the build will commence once the checkin is successfully committed. If this is not your experience then I would suggest that you either have funky stuff happening in a custom build, or the developer is checking blocks of work in separately rather than all at once.
Note that this happens per checkin per workspace - if two different developers check stuff in at the same time then whoever checks-in first will trigger the build, and the submission of the second developer will miss the build.
Our project group stored binary files of the project that we are working on in SVN repository for over a year, in the end our repository grew out of control, taking backups of SVN repo became impossible at one point since each binary that is checked in is around 20 MB.
Now we switched to TFS,we are not responsible for backing the repository up, our IT tream takes care of it and we have more network and storage capacity for backups because of that but we want to decide what to do with the binaries. As far as I know TFS stores deltas and for binary files but deltas will be huge, but we might end up reaching our disk space quota one day, so I would like to plan things better from the start, I don't want to get caught up in a bad situation when it's too late to fix the problem.
I would prefer not keeping builds in the source control but our project group insists to keep a copy of every binary for reproducing the problems that we see in the production system, I can't get them to get the source code from TFS, build it and create the binary, because it is not straightforward according to them.
Does TFS offer a better build versioning method? If someone can share some insight I'd really be grateful.
As a general rule you should not be storing build output in TFS. Occasionally you may want to store binaries for common libraries used by many applications but tools such as nuget get around that.
Build output has a few phases of its life and each phase should be stored in a separate place. e.g.
Build output: When code is built (by TFS / Jenkins / Hudson etc.) the output is stored in a drop location. This storage should be considered volatile as you'll be producing a lot of builds, many of which will be discarded.
Builds that have been passed to testers: These are builds that have passed some very basic QA e.g. it compiles, static code analysis tools are happy, unit tests pass. Once a build has been deemed good enough to be given to test it should be moved from the drop location to another area. This could be a network share (non production as the build can be reproduced) there may be a number of builds that get promoted during the lifetime of a project and you will want to keep track of what versions the testers are using in each environment.
Builds that have passed test and are in production: Your test team deem the build to be of a high enough quality to ship. As part of your go live process, you should take the build that has been signed off by test and store it in a 3rd location. In ITIL speak this is a Definitive Media Library. This can be a simple file share, but it should be considered to be "production" and have the same backup and resilience criteria as any other production system.
The DML is the place where you store the binaries that are in production (and associated configuration items such as install instructions, symbol files etc.) The tool producing the build should also have labelled the source in TFS so that you can work out what code was used to produce the binary. Your branching strategy will also help with being able to connect the binary to the code.
It's also a good idea to have a "live like" environment, this should be separate from your regular dev and test environments. As the name suggests it contains only the code that has been released to production. This enables you to quickly reproduce bugs in production
Two methods that may help you:
Use Team Foundation Build System. One of the advantages is that you can set up retention periods for finished builds. For example, you can order TFS to store the 10 latest successful builds, and the two latest failed ones. You can also tell TFS to store certain builds (e.g. "production builds"/final releases) indefinitely. These binaries folders can of course also be backed up externally, if needed.
Use a different collection for your binaries, with another (less frequent) backup schedule. TFS needs to backup whole collections, but by separating data that doesn't change as frequently as the source you can lower the backup cost. This of course depends on the frequency you are required to have the binaries backed up.
You might want to look into creating build definitions in TFS to give your project group an easy 'one button' push to grab the source code from a particular branch and then build it and drop it to a location. That way they get to have their binaries, and you don't have to source control them.
If you are using a branching strategy where you create Release or RTM branches when you push something to production, then you can point your build definitions at those branches and they can manually trigger them from the TFS portal or from within Visual Studio.
I have had a nagging feeling for some time that I may be ignoring useful qualities of TFS Workspaces. The site here provides some great background on what they are: http://www.woodwardweb.com/teamprise/000333.html.
However, given this information, I don't really understand when I ought to create a new workspace. Do I create one for each "project"? Do I create one for each project-branch? Do I need to create mirror workspaces on every machine that I intend to work on? I'm not sure what I need to consider when making this decision.
Is there a best practice describing under what circumstances to use different workspaces?
Note: although it may be interesting to learn what practice others follow, I am more interested in learning about how to make the decision myself. I'm not really asking "When do you create new workspaces?". Instead, I am asking "How do I decide when to create a new workspace?".
A workspace is defined per machine, per team project collection (TPC), therefore you need at least one workspace per machine you are working on, for each TPC you use.
Having a snapshot of the entire TPC on your machine might be both wasteful (you might not need access to projects or solutions that are maintained by other teams or developers, so you might want to create a workspace per team project or even one workspace per solution.
If you find yourself working on more than one task at the same time, you might want to create one workspace per task. This is considered a best-practice, and will allow you to separate the changes you make and check them in one task at a time (e.g. one workspace for a development task such as build a new UI, and another for fixing a bug recently found by QA).
Workspace per task works particularly well if your task vertically crosses multiple solutions (e.g. adding a UI, business logic, SOA service and updating the schema on a remote database, all as part of adding a new feature to your product); A task will rarely (if ever) cross team projects and should never cross TPCs.
Short answer, when you need to :-)
If you need to edit code on multiple machines then you will be forced to create a workspace on each machine.
Some people like to have a workspace per Team Project, others per branch or even solution.
Are you working on the same codebase but for different reasons? Branching is usually used to solve this but sometimes it's not an option.
Are the folder / file names in your repository causing you to hit the windows 260 character limit in a path? If so, time for a new workspace.
I tend to have 1 work space per machine mapping $/ to C:\tfs but that's my preference. The only time I create a new workspace is when I need to limit the number of files in scope.
For example, rolling back a changeset. If you use the tf rollback command (or tfpt rollback in 2008) then tfs insists on performng a get latest on the entire workspace. If you've got your workspace mapped to the root of a big team project this can take a long time. Setting up a workspace that only includes the folders that contain the files in the changeset can be a real time saver
I am pretty new to TFS but I have some experience with VSS. I like to know your opinions of what would be the best way of working with TFS in the following scenario:
We are a group of developers working on projects. All projects starts from a common base code. All projects are one man only, no code sharing until the project is done. A project can last from a few hours to several months, no code is merged until done. Any developer works simultaneously on more than one project, usually 7-10 projects at a time. Usually the projects only involve a small numbers of files that are changed/created (10-20) but rely on a large group of infrastructure files that change quite often. However, any change in infrastructure is not considered until the merge, so we don't get latest version from server until the final build.
An additional request is that, when merged, we’d like to use a 3 way merge tool. We use this approach in VSS, via a custom made application and it works very well. However this involves special file management, for example every file that has to be changed must have an original version saved somewhere that will be used as the “root” file for the 3 way merge process.
What do you think?
You should take a look at the Visual Studio TFS Branching Guide 2010. (direct download). In that package, there is a PowerPoint deck that walks you through a series of possible branching structures.
It sounds like you want either "Branch by project" or "Branch by developer" (since you only have one developer per project, these are effectively the same).
Regarding the 3-way merge tool, take a look at this list to see how to configure your favorite diff/merge tools.
What is the best way to create a completely new project in TFS by copying an existing one?
I have an ASP.NET project that will have 50+ "releases" per year. Each release is a distinct entity that needs to remain independent of all others. Once created, I want to make sure that any change to one (the source project or the copy) does not affect the other.
This is for source control only. I do not need to copy any work items.
In the pre-TFS world I would do this by simply copying the folder that contained all of the project files. This had me 90% of the way to the new app, which I could then tailor for the new release. It is very rare that I need to actually add functionality to the base application, and even when I do it never affects existing apps. Is this still possible using TFS, by copying my local folders and then adding the copy into TFS as a new project?
Any suggestions? One branch per release looks like the "standard" way of doing this but I will quickly end up with dozens of branches that really aren't related, and I'd rather keep each new project as it's own distinct project, with no chance of changes in one affecting the other.
Thanks!
Thanks for the responses. I think you've all given me enough insight to get started. Richard, thanks for the detail. I was a bit concerned that it might be too easy to accidentally merge the branches.
There are really two questions here:
1) Is it better to copy/paste or branch?
I'd venture to say that copy/paste is never appropriate. Unless you are very careful (at minimum, run 'tfpt treeclean' immediately before copying), it's likely you'll end up checking in some inappropriate files to the new location. In addition, you will be using up FAR more disk space on the server, since it must store 50+ full copies instead of just diffs.
There is virtually no danger that branches will "accidentally" become comingled down the line. Merging branches back together involves at least 3 deliberate steps: pend the merge (itself a 4-page wizard), then resolve all conflicts, then checkin.
Nor are you likely to get confused as to your place in the tree. TFS uses "path space" branching. That means branches appear to the user as separate physical locations in the source tree, rather than mere version-tags on top of the same path. Since branches look like folders, you can do all the normal folder operations on them: Cloak (don't download them to your local workspace), Permission (in particular, removing someone's Read permission will ensure they can't even see it), Delete or Destroy (when you're truly done with them).
2) When is it appropriate to create a new Team Project?
This is a more complex topic in general. Official guidance. My opinion.
However, I'd say your case is easy: don't do it. Team Projects have a lot of overhead. There is a finite number you can create on a server...ever. Don't forget about other forms of overhead too, like the time it takes for the project admin to port over all your settings, and the time every developer on your team spends reconnecting his Team Explorer.
All for what? The links above go into great detail about the forms of sub-structure that can be created inside a single Team Project. In short, almost anything is possible. The only areas that are somewhat lacking are Team Queries and Build Definitions, which are restricted to a single container folder, and a few settings like Exclusive Checkout which are all-or-nothing. Unless you have a very large or very diverse team, the benefits of separate team projects per release are very unlikely to outweigh the drawbacks.
Of course, if a "release" is a major event that signals a change in your SCM practices , that's a whole other story. New SCM => new process template => new team project. But I doubt you do that 50+ times a year :)
I would recommend using branching. Create a branch for each release from the main branch. As long as you do not merge the branches they will remain independent. Changes to the main branch will only affect releases created after the those changes were made.
You could copy the files and create a new project, but you may run into a couple of problems:
The projects "remember" that they were in TFS, there is a bit of manual work to clean up special files etc.
TFS may slow down when you have many projects, compared with a single project with branches
This might sound obvious but you should only create a new project for a "new project". It sounds like what you are talking about are different versions of the same project.
If you want to maintain separate codebases for previous releases then as the other answerers have said, branching the code is your best option. This works nicely when you want to merge bug fixes from your latest version into older releases too.
However if you really really must have new projects, you still use branching in the same manner.