I've purchased CodeKit a while ago, it makes front end projects really easy to setup.
The problem is, I'm in what I call a 'Front-end tool hell'
I've checked out Grunt and Yeoman a while back, and I don't see the point of using these tools if I'm using CodeKit. Am I missing a point?
Short answer: No. You don't miss anything
Longer answer: All of those tools (maybe with the exception of Yeoman) tackle the same thing, but from completely different directions.
Codekit is great to start, because it's like a Swiss army knife of tools, where you actually don't have to do that much work to get it going. Easy to configure and totally easy to use, especially if you don't have any command line experience.
If you want to have things more flexible and you need maybe more than the provided tasks (running a server, creating proxy connections, FTP uploads, having tools included which CodeKit misses); or if you simply need to integrate your builds in continuous integration environments, you will most likely end up with a command line build tool, and also most likely with Grunt. Grunt's biggest strength is in having multiple configurations for different environments. So if you want to have the same code compiled in different ways for different destinations, that works wonderfully with Grunt.
If Grunt can't offer you more than CodeKit, fine, stick with CodeKit!
Grunt has also its limitations, especially in terms of execution time and intermediate file results. That's because in Grunt you take a defined process and configure it. Gulp on the other hand allows you to define the process itself, thus making it even more flexible.
Oh, and concerning Yeoman: If you have a basic setup and like it, write a Yeoman generator and easily scaffold new ones by the push of a button. Or, if you are new to things like, let's say Angular, take a community generator and see what the pros think it's best for such an application. I'm not sure if CodeKit can do "project templates" by now, but that's the idea behind it.
Hope this helped.
Related
What are the pros and cons of ussing Assetic vs Grunt in my project? Which one is "better"? I heard that dealing with Assetic is a lot of pain, for me it looks ok, but I never used it that much. I found this http://konradpodgorski.com/blog/2014/06/23/better-way-to-work-with-assets-in-symfony-2/ and Grunt looks pretty good. I could try both myself but I'm in the middle of fixing a project and I need to choose some technology ASAP, so I need tldr; version of advantages and disadvantages of using either technology.
never used grunt together with symfony2, but i promised to myself that i will do it the next time.
building and watching for changes including possibly livereload are definitly the pro's for grunt! another pro for grunt is that there are thousands of plugins available, which could potentially do stuff like image-minification, uncss and so on. i don't think there is an easy way to do this with assetic.
overall it possibly depends on your usecase. if you simply just want to concatenate files it is probably easier to use assetic. otherwise i would definitly choose grunt (i'm confident in using grunt, just because i used it a lot)
Assetic is PHP so you can manipulate it at run time. Bundles can extend your templates and add stylessheets etc automatically.
On the other hand grunt is JavaScript and cant be integrated into your program at run-time but it supports a wider array of tools and is easier to configure.
I have quite a few co-workers and friends with existing brownfield, messy javascript applications who would like to start transitioning to some sort of js module system. I've tried to help them out in the past by showing them how to refactor to requirejs but I'm starting to think that is a bad approach.
The problem is usually that the nature of their globals-all-over-the-place code conflicts with the asynchronous nature of AMD, and as much as I believe in the AMD approach, they have bigger concerns than my lectures on the "proper" way to do module loading.
Browserify in the meantime removes the async consideration and is more straightforward but adds in a whole build step. For people who are not using bundling or any sort of a build process (or just the default one in visual studio) this is again, too much overhead.
So what I really want is a simple module system that allows people to define and require things. This is a half-step toward getting things working properly, they can include their dependencies with regular script tags and define them into the module system manually. I even wrote such a system because...hey, that's really easy.
Today someone pointed out to me that it should be possible to actually use just the client-side pieces of Browserify to achieve this. I agree. However, I can't really find any documentation anywhere nor just the Browserify client-side stuff in isolation.
After sitting down and dissecting a built browserify file I've concluded that no, what I want to do is not possible.
For one thing browserify doesn't seem to expose a define or even a require keyword. For another, it does some minor rewriting of the combined modules which would be very difficult to achieve during runtime.
I ran across a dynamic module loader that works well with Browserify. You can use it for development to expose "require" globally on the client side. Works great.
https://github.com/manvalls/drq
A solution to your problem could be:
https://github.com/LarsBV/browser-node-loader
I wrote this due to various sourcemap bugs in browsers, and too many / alternative,
configuration ways in gulp/browserify/watchify.
It has a build step but it only needs to be run when there is new dependencies.
I don't recommend this approach for production, but it is so much easier in development.
This is very new, and untested in anything but latest chrome, firefox, with some adjustments
in the generated script I think it will work in even ie6.
95% of my time I program ASP.NET (MVC) web sites.
Should I care about MSBuild?
We use MSBuild with CruiseControl.Net to manage the builds of most of our big ASP.NET projects. For every commit of one member of the team, a build is launched. It helps us detect
quickely incompatibilities before moving a feature to "staging" or "production".
I think it is really usefull when working with a team on the same ASP.NET project or if you are working alone on a big project.
That depends on your development environment.
If you have other folks that do deployment of your systems, and they take care of the build and deployment environment, then MSBuild probably won't be necessary for your work.
On the other hand, if you need to configure the build script to understand special situations that your code comes up with, then you will definitely need to understand MSBuild scripts.
Even for a one-man shop, it's a useful tool to know, especially if you are configuring a continuous integration server like Hudson.
No. Until you have to.
Its not absolutely necessary to know MS Build, but it is useful to know.
It might not be needed for all kind of projects, but it is extremely useful when you are working on a huge code base with automated custom build solution/ nightly build/developer builds so on and so forth.
It's unlikely, unless you choose to use it, or you start to make use of Team Foundation Server's Team Build.
Your development processes need to get to a certain complexity before automated builds really deliver their true value and/or if you find need for automatic deployment (including database changes if applicable).
The coming Visual Studio 2010 is going to make it far easier to use, but for now it retains a fairly steep learning curve which you can avoid by using alternatives, or commercial products (e.g. Visual Build Pro, Final Builder etc).
The nice thing is that it is part of the .Net framework, so it's already available as long as you have the framework installed (which it probably is).
So, in short, not really. It's something very useful and powerful though, setting up deployments using MSBuild can be very, very useful.
What should a developer know about MsBuild?
Every developer should know it exists and it's basic capabilities. If know it exists you won't duplicate its features and will know what it can do for you, when you need it.
Minimum:
As an exercise, build your project through the command line: msbuild myproj.sln
Know the role of continuous integration
A little more than minimum:
Hack your csproj (or vbproj) with a message task, so it outputs something during clean.
All done. When you need to know more, you'll figure it out.
My team works on a Medium sized product which takes about 2 hours to build on a single dual-core machine.
As part of an effort to improve productivity I am looking for alternatives to improve our build process.
Currently we build C++ code and .NET code using VS2005 solutions, we also have some legacy code built using makefiles and we pack the products using installshield. We also have unit tests written in UnitTest++, Nunit, CPPUnit and some tests that we wrote ourselves without any testing framework. Everything is coordinated by a set of Perl scripts that we wrote.
I am looking for a product, or a suite of products, or a bunch of non-related products that will allow me to do the following:
Improve building time. I tried Incredibuild for parallelizing the build with some success. I will be happy to find more alternatives (cheaper ones???)
Improve the build process definition. I need something to replace our complicated perl scripts with something that will allow me to define the build process easily.
Improve our ability to discover problems in the build (maybe a web interface for looking at build outputs, highlight compilation errors, gather statistics on build times and build failures etc.
Any other nice features that can help us improve our build management.
Consider NAnt: http://nant.sourceforge.net/, CruiseControl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CruiseControl, and a faster build system. there are some .NET related links at: http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/dashboard.action
Edit: Gradle is probably the best choice now.
Try FinalBuilder it's very compreshesnsive build managment tool
Sakin,
I think you may be looking for two different tools - although occassionally you will find them packaged together.
One tool would be the build management system that schedules the builds, shows you the outputs, gathers statistics, etc. Tools like FinalBuilder, CruiseControl and AnthillPro play in that space.
The other tool would be the one that tears apart your build into parallelizeable pieces and speeds the build. Incredibuild is pretty good at what they do in that respect and certainly cheaper than some alternatives. There are free options built into some of the open source tools like gmake, but my understanding is that you'd need to do some pretty serious work to get that to work with solution files.
You should be able to mix and match at will. We have customers using Anthill with Incredibuild, gmake, and a number of other build speeding tools.
I used Automated QA's Automated Build Studio a few years ago at a previous job and it was pretty good and fairly cheap. I haven't used it since then, so I'm just recommending you look at it.
If you have an MSDN subscription you should look at TFS. TFS Build is pretty robust and is integrated into Visual Studio and works hand in hand with Team System/TFS Source Control (you didn't say what source control you're using).
We have a process similar to yours, although it's not a VS project. Up until recently we used perl scripts and tinderbox to build and track the status of the builds and unit tests. We've recently made the jump over to Hudson and it seems to work great.
https://hudson.dev.java.net/
Don't be put off by the java label, our projects are c/c++ and they work fine. Hudson can execute shell commands, so we can build our projects (makefiles) and run our unit tests fine. Right now we have it set on a timed build, which when it finishes (if successfully) kicks all our unit tests off in parallel.
It's a great system and worth checking out if it's what you're looking for. It logs console ouput and has tons of great addons (logs and charts warning counts, disk space used size, build on CM change) and a nice web-interface for the team to watch.
Oh yea it's free..
I wouldnt advise HUDSON .. there is unnecessary too much bragging about it ..
hudson is limited tools other than it can do much more and have a better bui8lt core architecture
The suggestion to go with anthillpro and incredibuild is a good one !!
With regard to the "Hudson has extensive plugins .. blah blah blah " its really is a sham ..
What ever hudson CANNOT achieve it is core architecture it does so as a plugin
Surprisingly if i have to mask a passsword or any credential i cannot do it without the "password masking" plugin ..
Ideally if a system is "enterprise scalable" this masking should be built into it core
This just one example .. i have a clear analysis for these tools but cannot upload a document here
Moving to the other side
Hudson "looks and feels" "nice & cute" and is relatively light weight
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
As recently as several years ago, the developers actually made the builds that went to clients. This was obviously a disaster for reasons too numerous to list.
Then when we started to learn the errors of our ways, we looked for a way to auto-build the entire application on a dedicated build machine. The culture at that time was very averse to bringing in outside tools, so we built our own autobuild system by writing a VB app.
This worked fine for a while, until the project's structure started to change, new projects were added, and we needed to build the application in different ways. Then then weaknesses of our hand-rolled autobuilder became apparent and, over time, increasingly onerous. This disease has progressed now to the point where QA (who owns our build process) can't even maintain the autobuilder because it requires more and more programming skill. Every time we add a project or change something in an existing project, it consumes more developer time just to make it work. There have been days when we were unable to produce a build because the system was broken.
I'm now in a position where I can change this process, and I'm looking to scrap the entire system and put something else in it's place. My goals are:
Have an autobuild system that can run with zero human interaction at a specific time every day. It should be able to gather all the source code, compile all the apps, create the setups, put the finished products on a network share, and possibly trigger the automated testing system to kick in (we use QTP).
The autobuild system should be flexible enough to easily adapt to changes in the project without rrequiring a major overhaul.
It should be simple enough so that QA can own the system and not require developer resources to make changes to how builds are made.
What are your experiences? Can you recommend an autobuild system? Should I have different goals?
I'm currently using CruiseControl integrated with Ant to control project builds. This allows flexibility of build schedules and means you can automate the entire build process fairly easily using Ant scripts. Also, during defect fixing periods you can have CruiseControl set up to watch for source control submissions instead of time periods and build when these occur. This allows developers very quick feedback on defect fixes.
I use FinalBuilder and FinalBuilder Server for nightly builds. It's a bit buggy at times, but if you think it through it's quite easy to create extensible projects that can build X project type, build it's database from change scripts and deploy it to a testing server.
It can also handle all kinds of wierd and wonderful things like ZIPing a nightly build and uploading it to an FTP or creating ISO images automatically.
Definitely look into MSBuild if you're on the Microsoft stack.
Joel is always going on and on about how great FinalBuilder is, so that might be worth a look as well.
We just migrated from a hand-rolled set of Perl scripts to a Buildbot setup. I found it because that's what Google's using for Chrome.
You can do nightlies, or it can integrate with source control to do an isolated test build whenever anybody does a checkin, or a variety of other things. It's also parallel; you can have more than one machine in the build farm, either for specialized duties or just to handle more load.
The entire system is written in Python, so it's platform-agnostic, which is important if you need to do builds on more than one platform. It can do anything you can do from the command line; we have it calling MSBuild for user-mode components, a DDK build for kernel-mode pieces, and running products for unit test builds.
Out of the box it supports most OSS source control tools, but if you're using TFS or something else you may need to modify the package that you install on the slave machines.
I think you are on the right track here.
Whoever looks after your automated build process needs to have a fundamental understanding of how your solution fits together. This doesn't necessarily mean knowing how to write code or architect solutions, but they will require a solid understanding of how the solution compiles, packages itself etc.
You might need to share responsibility for builds between people or teams to accomplish this. I'd say that a daily build is a "team responsibility".
I'd look at establishing a baseline build configuration which can be extended for "special use" builds (besides just building a release version), e.g. internationalized releases, fxCop/Quality Tools config, build + run Unit Tests, continuous integration builds, a build config to run on developer workstations, etc.
Instead, I'd aim to achieve the following:
Automatic versioning, signing etc
Ability to produce verbose output (logging) to help debug build breaks
On that point - it should handle errors properly, capture as much information and log it properly
Consistency - It should work the same way each time to produce repeatable outcomes
Run in a clean, limited access environment
Well commented/documented so that it can be understood by new staff, etc.
Option to generate release notes, compile metrics, produce reports (if this option is available)
Ability to deploy to multiple environments
Support different ways to obtain source code from source control, e.g. by changeset, label, date, etc
As for tool recommendations, I've used FinalBuilder, Visual Build Pro, MSBuild/Team Build, nAnt, CruiseControl and CIFactory plus and good old fashioned batch files.
Each has its pros and cons, I'm not going to make a recommendation except to say that the products with decent UI support were a little bit easier to work with, but at times were far less powerful. If you're working with VIsual Studio, MSBuild is very powerful, but has a somewhat steep learning curve.
As of tools delivered with MS Visual Studio you might want to use MSBuild. Additional Community toolsets for MSBuild will even give you the possibility to checkout code from Subversion and zip output.
We're using it successfully in our company. Projects consists of several solutions with 100+ subprojects. Works like a charm.
Visual Build Pro is nice, if your build machines are Windows. I think this would fill the requirement you have about QA owning the system. But don't get me wrong, it's pretty powerful.
We use CruiseControl.NET and UppercuT (which uses NAnt) to do this. UppercuT uses conventions for building so it makes it really easy for someone to get started by answering three questions (What is the solution named? What is the path to source control? What is your company's name?) and you are building.
http://code.google.com/p/uppercut/
Some good explanations here: UppercuT
We use the Hudson buildbot for for big Java web app building from ant build scripts. Hudson is pretty sweet for our purposes. It has a master/slave setup so builds can be done concurrently (on a timer or on-demand). Slave nodes can be any OS/hardware combo provided it has the needed build tools already on it and is on the network (and won't crash every 10 min).
Full web-based interface including live console output, change logs, artifacts from the build are available across the network including previous builds (if successful). Awesomesauce!