I'm attempting to modify my build process file for TFS 2010. I have a flag that is set when queuing the build, and when said flag is set, I want to create a Label, and add all the source files in the compiled project to that label.
On sequential builds, with the flag set, I than want to replace older source files in said label with anything new in the changeset being compiled.
I've been attempting to do this with LabelSources with no luck, and there is but vary poor documentation on either LabelSources or LabelWorkspace (whats the difference?).
Here's what I currently have:
<mtbwa:LabelSources
Child="[LabelChildOption.Replace]"
Comment="Published to Container"
DisplayName="Create Container Label"
sap2010:WorkflowViewState.IdRef="LabelSources_1"
Items="[{"$/Foo/LabelTest/Sandbox/"}]"
Name="[String.Format("{0}-{1}", LabelName, Version_Container)]"
Recursion="[RecursionType.Full]"
Scope="$/Foo"
mva:VisualBasic.Settings="Assembly references and imported namespaces serialized as XML namespaces"
Version="T" />
It definitely hits the action, but no labels can be found after the fact.
Any help would be much appreciated. and Any tangible documentation, other than Class Documentation with sparse definitions would also be greatly appreciated
Edit 1: Tried to clear up my goal.
What you are trying to do is built into the existing template. There should be an option in the process definition that refers to Clean Sources which will be set to True.
This option controls wither the build sources get cleaned, deleted and start afresh. Or if a differential is done.
If you have a lot of source code you can set clean sources to false and save a bunch of time getting the code.
You can also speed the build by placing a TFS Proxy on the build box which will cache the files and make a clean build quicker.
In my experience, Most of the built-in activities are poorly-documented for a reason - their only well-tested use case is their use inside TFS' built-in templates (DefaultTemplate.11.0.xaml, etc.). I'm afraid you're going to have to write some custom code, in the form of a custom activity, powershell script or something, to achieve other goals.
That said, I don't really understand the process you're trying to set up. Do you just want to have a label set as your latest-successfully-built sources? Why not use the one created automatically by the build itself?
Related
As in subject:
Go to "Find Changeset" option.
Find a changeset.
Double-click on changeset to open Changeset Details window.
It gives a list of all files that have been checked in within given changeset.
Why I cannot apply a label on those files from that level where I have them all in one place? Especially, that very often they are part of different solutions and projects, so normally I would have to create a label for one file and then search and add one by one to the existing one.
It is so inefficient!
Is it some bug or lack of functionality? If the second - it is hard to believe MS guys forgot about such handy function.
How do you deal guys with such situation?
EDIT - to clarify my reasoning:
If I use jessehouwing's method - yes, it works and it's simple.
But then when I search in the future for that label and want to see what code was included, it gives me a list of all solutions - even those totally unrelated (IWP and PDPRO are the unwanted ones):
If I use it my way - it gives me that:
I think it looks cleaner and gives directly the information of what solutions and files underneath where included at the time when I put stuff into Production environment and applied corresponding PROD label.
The feature you're looking for doesn't exist. generally a single file or group of files at a label doesn't make a lot of sense. While it's possible to "scope" labels in TFVC, it's only possible through the commandline.
generally you'd create a label at the repo or branch level at the specified changeset. That will include all files, including the ones you just checked in. Creatign such label is relatively easy from the source control explorer, though you need to copy the changeset number:
It's unclear to me why you'd only want the changed files to be included in the label, maybe you can elaborate a little more on that requirement.
Update: What you desire isn't possible from inside VS and isn't simple from the commandline either. I suppose that with a bit of Powershell Magic against the TFS Client Object Model you can do this from the commandline and it should also be possible to build this as a Visual Studio Extension (or maybe suggest it to the author of the TFS Source Control Explorer Extensions.
I have the following scenario: The company edits aspx/xml/xslt files and copy manually to the servers in order to publish them. So, no build is done. For the sake of control we've decided to adopt TFS Preview since it tracks the version, who edited and so on. Needless to say, it works like a charm. :)
The problem is that since we are unable to build the apps we can't set a build definition to automate the copy of files to another place which, as I've stated before, is done manually.
My question is: Is it possible to copy the files to another place (a folder in a server or local) during the check in? If so, how? (remember, we don't build. so we can't customize the build process...)
You have two options.
1) Create a custom check in policy. I'm not familiar with this process enough to give you any pointers, but I believe it can be done.
2) Create a custom build template, and use that for your builds. You should be able to wipe the build template down to nothing, and then only add the copy operation to it. This is probably the route I would take. Get started here.
You mention you are using TFSPreview, which is hosted on the cloud so it won't be able to access any machines in your network unless you're prepared to open up your firewalls :).
You can copy source controlled files around the TFS Instance ([say into a Source Controlled Drop F1) and then check this out after the build completes.
Start by familiarising yourself with customising the TFS Build Process.
When you're up to speed, you need to look at adding a "Copy" Activity in the Workflow to move the files to the drop folder.
We have an automated build and QA process for our software, using tfs/teambuild and msbuild, and we want to be able to know (for audit purposes) whether a component has gone through that process or not.
For example, if a library is installed on a user's machine, I'd like to be able to inspect it in some way to tell that it went through the build. In particular, I want to be able to distinguish it from components built directly on a developer's machine, and then manually installed.
What is the best way to do this? Code signing as part of the build process seems closest to these requirements, but presumably this would not cover any 3rd-party libraries that might be used? I also read about the ILMerge tool to merge all assemblies into one, but then I don't know enough to work out whether they can then be signed or not?
I'm sure we're not the first people to have the requirement, so casting around for any ideas or hints from others who might have done such a thing
Thanks!
Our developer builds are set to keep the versions at "0.0.0.0", but our build server marks the build based on a pre-configured version and automagically generated build string. "1.0.3.xxx". Your build server doesn't allow for this?
Your build process should be updating each of your projects assemblyinfo.cs files (or a global linked equivalent), you can do this with the TFS changeset number, so like the previous poster indicated you end up with the property on each dll of 1.0.changeset.buildno or something similar. You can do this easily in msbuild.
You could have the values of each assembly info file set in source control to be something obvious like 0 or 999.
A lot of what your asking is about process and training as well though.
If your using installers or zips to package your deliverables then you can also label them with the build number as part of your build process.
But if you have changeset you have the link from dll to code, so traceable, coupled with links to third party dll references as defined in each csproj.
I am trying to come up with best practices regarding use of TFS source control. Right now, anytime we do a build, we label the files that are checked into the TFS with the version number. Is this approach better or worse than simply checking the files in and having the version number in the comments?
Can you then use the changeset to go back if necessary or the labels are still more versatile?
Thanks!
They have two different purposes, ChangeSets are when the files have actually changed and you wish to keep a permanent record of that change. Labels mark a certain version of the files so that you can easily go back to that point. Unless your build actually changes files under source control and you wish to record these changes. You should be labeling.
Also, labeling is much less resource intensive. And you can have multiple labels on the same version of a file.
You should label the versions of source files that make up your build. If you're using TeamBuild, it does that for you automatically. It combines the name of your build definition, date, and the build number. So you don't need to do anything.
Your other option is not very conventional and requires a lot of unnecessary work. If I understand it correctly, you would check out your source files during the build process and then check them back in with a version number specified in the check-in comments. This is as Alex mentioned very resource intensive in terms of your build process and also your source control repository. Moreover, how would you get the source files for a particular version if the version information is embedded in the comments? It will be very hard and you would have to sit down and write your own application that uses TFS source control api to download the source files to a workspace by searching for the version number in the check-in comments. This creates unnecessary complexity and headaches.
If you use labels instead, you can do a get by label in VS IDE to download the source files that make up that label. You can even tell TeamBuild to use a label instead of downloading the latest source files during build automation. That way you can build previous versions of your application easily. With labels, you can also apply later changesets to an existing label if there were code changes by simply getting that label and then getting specific changesets and then doing a quick label or creating a brand new label.
Labeling is very powerful, convenient to use, and is a part of TFS. Rather than coming up with your custom solution that requires a lot of effort to make it work and maintain, just try to use what's already available.
Right now, anytime we do a build, we label the files that are checked into the TFS with the version number
You don't need to do this. TFS can refer to a state of the codebase in numerous ways, of which labels are indeed one - but so are builds and even changesets. You can see the available ways to reconstruct a particular point in time by doing a Get Specific Version... and examining the options in the Type dropdown:
Changeset
Date
Label
Latest Version
Workspace Version
Changeset allows you to get just after any changeset; Date is obvious; Label is too, except that builds automatically* create labels (choose Label from this dropdown then have a look in the Find Label dialog).
*I think it's automatic! Unless it's something we've set up specially where I am at the moment...
StackOverflow won't let me comment on the answers above, so I'm writing this as a new "answer". I want to clarify some of the misconceptions listed above.
First, using TFVC Labels is MORE resource intensive than using changesets. A lot more. Commands such as Branch, Merge, and Get by Label is slower. For enterprise servers with huge databases you do not want to be using labels.
Second, Builds don't automatically create labels, although the default build steps include a step to create a label.
Third, as others already mentioned, labels can be moved or deleted, so they are much less dependable than changesets which are immutable.
Overall I recommend you NOT use labels. The simplest alternative is to just remember the changeset number for your builds. Or if you want to isolate different release versions, you should create release branches.
Labels are OK for small systems, but are not good for large enterprises.
I have a website project with a lot of small images (more than 15000), every time CI tools get source code from TFS will take a very long time. If there is a solution can avoid this?
thanks for any help.
You need the SkipClean and SkipInitializeWorkspace properties. This is a cleanest solution. These will manipulate the IncrementalGet and IncrementalBuild properties correctly.
See here and here for more info.
Make sure you are doing an update, not a full/fresh checkout every time. Then you will only pay the price to update the changed file(s), not fetch the entire set of files.
The Hudson's SVN plugin has a checkbox for "Use Update"
If checked, Hudson will use 'svn
update' whenever possible, making the
build faster. But this causes the
artifacts from the previous build to
remain when a new build starts.