I'm having a very hard time finding any information about this. I've just created a Build-Deploy-Test build definition for one of our main projects but when the workflow runs, it reports a wrong value for the "$(BuildLocation)" macro, which breaks everything from the deployment phase onwards (the tests also try to run over this wrong path).
I know what is causing the problem, but I don't know how to fix it. The build definition we are redirecting the lab one to is configured to build the 'Release' configuration of our solutions. The drop folder is "\outputServer\drops". I expected the BuildLocation macro to then return "\\outputServer\drops\<BuildName>\<BuildNameFormat>", but the macro is returning "\\outputServer\drops\<BuildName>\<BuildNameFormat>\Release" instead.
I initially thought that this was an incompatibility between the LabDefaultTemplate.11.xaml template (which is the one I'm trying to use) and the old DefaultTemplate.xaml, which I based our custom template over. I tried updating our custom template to take the new default (DefaultTemplate.11.1.xaml) as a base, but after converting the template the problem persists.
Even after looking at the code on the DefaultTemplate.11.1, I still don't see it filter the output by configuration names at all. The only processing in there is based on the solution or project name, which is disabled by default (controlled by the 'Solution Specific Build Outputs' option under the Advanced category, on the build definition configuration).
Why is it assuming that the drop folder ends with 'Release' while the dropped outputs are not placed on this folder at all? I managed to make the deployment scripts to run fine by appending a ".." to the path, like this $(BuildLocation)\..\myScript but when the workflow tries to run the automated tests it seems to be using this same macro and obviously doesn't find the test dlls.
It would be possible to work around this by not specifying a build configuration on the 'Items to Build' element in the definition options (thus letting it choose the default ones), but specifying the configuration was a conscious decision on our part, because there are differences in the files and some configs are transformed differently when the project is built in Release mode.
I'm currently using VS2012 Update 3/TFS 2012 Update 2 it this helps any.
Update:
Ok I found where it is doing this inside the template itself. The fact that the lab workflow is very simple helped here.
Inside the Compute build location needed 'if statement', there is an assignment that seems to be doing this weird concatenation. Here is the code:
If(LabWorkflowParameters.BuildDetails.Configuration Is Nothing, BuildLocation, If(LabWorkflowParameters.BuildDetails.Configuration.IsEmpty Or (SelectedBuildDetail.Information.GetNodesByType(Microsoft.TeamFoundation.Build.Common.InformationTypes.ConfigurationSummary, True)).Count = 1, BuildLocation, If(LabWorkflowParameters.BuildDetails.Configuration.IsPlatformEmptyOrAnyCpu, BuildLocation + "\" + LabWorkflowParameters.BuildDetails.Configuration.Configuration, BuildLocation + "\" + LabWorkflowParameters.BuildDetails.Configuration.Platform + "\" + LabWorkflowParameters.BuildDetails.Configuration.Configuration)))
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. This behavior seems to be a bug to me, since the build template itself (not the lab one) does NOT do this concatenation. How can the LabTemplate assume this type of thing?
Just removing the activity from the LabDefaultTemplate build process template seems to work.
I'm not sure what the meaning or purpose is of that Assign activity, but it seems to work fine for us without it.
Related
We have an ASP.NET MVC project that we want to create a publish package from during an automated build. The build is using the unmodified default template with Arguments /p:DeployOnBuild=True /p:CreatePackageOnPublish=True.
If I do a WebDeploy directly to a server it is working fine (if I change /p:CreatePackageOnPublish to false) but I would prefer to just create a package that I can deploy during a Lab build.
The error message looks like this:
TF270002: An error occurred copying files from 'C:\Builds\19\Binaries'
to '\nas\Build\Drop\MyProject\MyProject_Development.Test\20120209.1'.
Details: The specified path, file name, or both are too long. The
fully qualified file name must be less than 260 characters, and the
directory name must be less than 248 characters.
The first part of the problem was the build folder path was too long (274 characters) but after changing the working directory from $(SystemDrive)\Builds\$(BuildAgentId)\$(BuildDefinitionPath) to $(SystemDrive)\Builds\$(BuildDefinitionId) it's down to 230 characters as the longest path so it should be ok.
The problem now seems to be the path in the drop folder, even though it's root path is not that long by itself \\nas\Build\Drop\MyProject, the build name and Build Number Format quickly adds to the length MyProject_Development.Test\MyProject_Development.Test_20120208.1. After that all them nested paths create really deep folder structures _PublishedWebsites\MyProject.Web_Package\Archive\Content\C_C\Builds\19\Sources\MyProject\Source\MyProject.Web\obj\Debug\Package\PackageTmp\Content\ui-lightness\Images\ui-bg_diagonals-thick_18_b81900_40x40.png.
So is there any way to get around this problem? I shortened the build number format from $(BuildDefinitionName)_$(Date:yyyyMMdd)$(Rev:.r) to $(Date:yyyyMMdd)$(Rev:.r) to save a few characters but it's not enough. I guess we could shorten the build name a bit but it would break the naming convention used (Ok, that would not be a really big problem but it would be annoying!) and still it would feel like a short term solution.
What else is there to do?
The short answer is the path length limitation is really annoying, and you're going to have to spend some (more) time tweaking your file/folder structure to make this work.
For example instead of \nas\Build\Drop\MyProject, just do \nas\Build\Drop (or \nas\Builds) since the project name is also in the build name.
Flatten the folder structure in your projects (do you really need a Source folder under MyProject?).
Also, go vote for the UserVoice suggestion for the TFS team to fix the path length limitations: http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/2156195-fix-260-character-file-name-length-limitation
I know the question is old, but I faced the same problem and I devised to solution to this, although it errs more on the preventing the problem from ever occurring rather than fixing the existing path length condition. It can then be applied once the issue has been - manually - resolved.
Please note that it applies to TFS under git. A similar approach could be devised for TFSVC, although it would have to be run after the code is merged.
Essentially, it's a short script to be run as part of the PR build. It enforces that no file added or modified has a path longer than the one you allow.
It is described in this blog post
I have a complex project group that has about 10 "final" build configurations configured in a tree, where each node has its own option set. Something like this:
Base
Release
Release Generic 1
Release Final 1
...
Release final 5
Release Generic 2
Release Final 6
...
Debug
same as release, but for debug
so, all base, Release, Release Generic X, Release Final Y have their own option set saved in files and added as reference. So you will have
base.optset
Release.optset
Release Generic 1.optset
Release Final 1.optset
..
The main differences between these option sets are various compiler defines enabling/disabling certain features that are organized in the tree mentioned above (hence the build targets and the option sets) and obviously search paths that include the needed stuff.
So each option set also contains different search paths that depend on the respective build configuration.
There are over 100 projects in the project group and most of them relate to one another on different level of configurations, so there are also a bunch of Build Groups, but this is irrelevant for the question as right now I'm trying to build the projects one at a time.
The problem is that every option set is configuring the search path. Up to and including "Release Generic 1.optset" the search path is correctly updated and used. However, the "Release Final 1" and siblings don't get the search paths introduced by "Release Final 1.optset". (I know this because I looked at the compiler messages and checked the parameters passed to dcc32) It appears like the option set is ignored.
Everything is configured with "inherit=true" in the option set.
There is nothing specific in the build configurations, nowhere. Every project uses the configuration in the IDE and option set files only.
Is this issue/limitation documented anywhere/known about? Is there a workaround? Other than applying the option set as value and not by reference.
Thanks.
later edit:
I decided to implement a pretty ugly workaround in order to get moving: basically, replicate teh configuration from "Release Generic 1.optset" into each "Release Final ?.optset"
this has the major disadvantage of having to edit 5 option set files propagating the same modification, when in need of adding something to "Release Generic 1.optset"
Finally I managed to figure out the problem. It's actually a bug in the Delphi IDE in that it messes up the imports in the dproj file.
Specifically, if an optionset is added once, it will not be maintained with the necessary import condition for the rest of the configs.
This usually happens when you add/delete a configuration, the dproj gets busted and optset files no longer get imported for all the configs.
But once your configs are stable and you no longer change them, the dproj remains stable.
I mocked up an application to validate dproj files against these issues, verifying that each config has its optset files in an import directive. I'm yet to make it auto-correct this, as I'm rather busy. But once I manage to find the time, or if there are more people affected by it and require an automatic fix, I'll try to make a release.
Until then, if you noticed the option set is not applied for a specific config, simply find the configs id in dproj (something like Cfg_10 ) and see if you can find an
<Import Condition="'$(Cfg_10)'!='' And Exists('optset file path name')" Project="optio file path name"/>
if not, then add it after the other <import calls
In the TFS 2010 build definition window, under “Process” there are two required items. They are “Configurations to build” and “Projects to build”. Under projects to build, it will allow me to enter something like:
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/*
However, this doesn’t seem to do what I expect. The build fails because it’s looking for:
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Sources/*
What I am trying to achieve by this is to build all the solutions held under this area. For example, I have:
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution1/Solution1.sln
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution2/Solution2.sln
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution3/Solution3.sln
There are many more solutions than this, which is why I’m looking for a way to build all solutions under the specified path recursively. Is there a way to do this in TFS 2010?
You can modify the process template. Expand it with the Matching files (I don't have the exact naming now) activity. Add a parameter that passes the information you set in the build defintion to the MachingFiles actvity. Then pass into the build solution activity instead of the argument that you enter in the build definition the files that is found by the MatchingFiles activity.
Now add a dummy solution in the build definition for the solution to build (it is not used anymore).
See the blog post series on the build customization for more information on customizing the build process template.
FWIW,
I've got: "configurations to build" blank
and under "projects to build" I've added my solutions via the ellipsis button
I would setup mappings for
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution1/
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution2/
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution3/
Then in the build definitions enter the three projects to build
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution1/Solution1.sln
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution2/Solution2.sln
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2/Solution3/Solution3.sln
You can leave the configurations to build as blank, or if you want to do a certain build you can set it to (for example) something like Debug|Mixed Platforms (check your Configuration Manager... for the solutions you are building to see what is valid)
Alternatively, you can just map the following (depending on how much you have in this folder, if you have Solutions 4+ that you don't want to trigger builds on, don't do it at this level)
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2
And have one solution which contains the Solution1, Solution2 and Solution3, and build that instead.
By default building your Solution1 which is mapped to
$/TeamProject/Area1/Area2
On a build agent with a working directory that is going to looks something like:
$(SystemDrive)\Builds\$(BuildAgentId)\$(BuildDefinitionPath)
You'll end up with it being build under
C:\Builds\1\Solution1\Binaries
C:\Builds\1\Solution1\Sources
C:\Builds\1\Solution1\TestResults
Which is why you want to make sure that your OutDir's etc are all correct and not hard coded!
If you have a look while building, you'll see the build agent populating the Sources folder, and it should (if configured correctly) put all outputs into the Binaries folder (and then copy them to the Drop Folder configured under Build Defaults in TFS.
I'm trying to work with MSBuild and TFS.
I've managed to create my own MSBuild script, that works great from the command-line. The script works with csproj files, and compiles, obfuscate, sign and copies everything that's needed.
However, looking at the documentation of TFS & Team Build, it appears that it expect solutions as the "input" for the script.
Also, I haven't found an easy/intuitive way of performing a "Get Latest Version" from the TFS as part of the script. I'm assuming that the Team Build automatically do a "Get Latest" on the solutions it's suppose to compile, but again - I don't (want to) work with solutions...
Any insights? any pointers? any links?
Team Build defines about 25 targets of its own. When you queue a Team Build, they are automatically run for you in the predefined order listed # MSDN. Don't modify this process. Instead, simply set a couple of these properties that determine how the tasks behave. For example, set <IncrementalGet> to "true" if you want ordinary Get behavior, or "false" if you want something closer to tf get /force.
As far as running your own MSBuild script, again this shouldn't be necessary. Start with the TFSBuild.proj file that's provided for you. It should only require minimal modifications to do everything you describe. Call your obfuscation & signing code by overriding a task like AfterCompile or AfterTest. Put your auto-deploy code in AfterDropBuild. Etc.
Even really complex scenarios are possible if you refactor appropriately. See past answers #1 #2.
As far as the actual compile, you're right that Team Build operates on solutions. I recommend giving it what it wants. I'll be the first to admit that *.sln files are ugly and largely undocumented, but at least you're offloading the work to a well tested & supported product.
If you really wanted to, you could give it a blank/dummy solution and override the CoreCompile task with your custom compiler logic. But this is really asking for trouble. At bare minimum, you lose all of Team Build's flexibility WRT building multiple platforms and flavors. More practically, you're bound to spend a lot of time debugging something that's designed to "just work" -- and there are no good MSBuild debuggers yet (that I know of). Not worth it, IMO.
BTW, the solution files do not affect the Get process. As you can see in the 1st link, the Get is done very early on, long before Team Build even reads the solution file(s). Apart from a few options like <IncrementalGet>, this is not controlled from MSBuild at all -- in particular, the paths to be downloaded are determined by the workspace mappings associated with the build definition. I.e., they are stored in the Team Build SQL database, not the filesystem, and managed with tools (like Team Explorer) that call the TFS webservice API.
I have a vcproj file that includes a simple pre-build event along the lines of:
Helpertask.exe $(ProjectDir)
This works fine on developer PCs, but when the solution is built on our TFS 2008 build server under MSBuild, $(ProjectDir) is either blank or points to an unrelated folder on the server!
So far the best workaround I have managed is to hard code the developer and server paths instead:
if exist C:\DeveloperCode\MyProject HelperTask.exe C:\DeveloperCode\MyProject
if exist D:\BuildServerCode\MyProject HelperTask.exe D:\BuildServerCode\MyProject
This hack works in post-build steps but it doesn't work for a pre-build step (the Pre-build task now does nothing at all under MSBuild!)
Do you have any ideas for a fix or workaround? I have very little hair left!
$(MSBuildProjectDirectory) worked for me
I think your problem may be related to how items are initalized. An items include attribute is evaluated at the begining of a build. So if you depend on files that are created in the build process you must declare these as dynamic items. Dynamic items are those defined inside of a target, or by using the CreateItem task. I've detailed this on my blog MSBuild: Item and Property Evaluation.
Sayed Ibrahim Hashimi
My Book: Inside the Microsoft Build Engine : Using MSBuild and Team Foundation Build
I think the problem is that build server's workspace probably isn't initialized properly.
I just kept getting problems with this - I tried many different approaches but they all failed in mysterious ways.
Once $(ProjectDir) started behaving properly again, the pre-build step stopped executing the command (I added echo commands above and below it - they were both executed, but the program in between them was not. No errors or output of any kind were generated to indicate why it failed).
I don't know if this is a dodgy server of if MSBuild is having a laugh.
I've given up now. I gave the build server a big kick and have changed tack: We now run this tool offline (manually) and check in the results for the build server to use. So much for an automated build :-( If only MSBuild would run solutions in the same way as Visual Studio does - it's maddening that it sets up the environment completely differently (different paths coming out of the solution variables, ouptus redirected into different folders so you can't find them where they're supposed to be, etc)
I branched an existing project and $(ProjectDir) kept the old directory in the newly branched code. But that's because I had some compiling errors. Once every project in the solution compiled without errors, $(ProjectDir) changed to the correct path.
Carlos A Merighe