In short, is it possible to have this kind of nested transformation hierarchy for transorming web.config at build time?
web.config
|_
web.config.release
|_web.config.release.live
|_web.config.release.stage
So in other words, web.config.release applies xdt:transforms to web.config, and then the last two apply transformations to the output of that.
I'm trying to avoid the repetition that I'd otherwise have in all the transforms. The last two in my example here for instance would do little more than insert keys, connection strings or account passwords.
Have I missed something obvious - is this possible?
So it turns out this sort of works. It does what I want, although I have no idea how it knows which file to use in which circumstance, but given simply these files in VS2013;
web.debug and web.release transforms are applied as normal on build. Seondly, the Wen.IIS Localhost xxxx configs are applied to the output of that when published. The latter files only need to contain the few lines that differ from the previous transformation output.
Publishing is good for debug which is what I wanted it for, but for I don't publish live web sites that way. I'd have thought that perhaps there was some build event task in my csproj that I could edit but it seems either to be built into VS or defined elsewhere.
So I'm getting the multiple transform task that I wanted, however I haven't found a way to build nested transformations in general as outlined in the question.
Related
I am using AzureML pipelines, where the interface between pipeline steps is through a folder or file.
When I am passing data into the pipeline, I point directly to a single file. No problem at all. Very useful when passing in configuration files which all live in the same folder on my local computer.
However, when passing data between different steps of the pipeline, I can't provide the next step with a file path. All the steps get is a path to some folder that they can write to. Then that same path is passed to the next step.
The problem comes when the following step is then supposed to load something from the folder.
Which filename is it supposed to try to load?
Approaches I've considered:
Use a standardized filename for everything. Problem is that I want to be able to run the steps locally too, independant of any pipeline. This makes very for a very poor UX for that use case.
Check if the path is to a file, if it isn't, check all the files in the folder. If there is only one file, then use it. Otherwise throw an exception. This is maybe the most elegant solution from a UX perspective, but it sounds overengineered to me. We also don't structurally share any code between the steps at the moment, so either we will have repetition or we will need to find some way to share code, which is non-trivial.
Allow custom filenames to be passed in optionally, otherwise use a standard filename. This helpes with the UX, but often the filenames are supposed to be defined by the configuration files being passed in, so while we could do some bash scripting to get the filename into the command, it feels like a sub-par solution.
Ultimately it feels like none of the solutions I have come up with are any good.
It feels like we are making things more difficult for ourselves in the future if we assume some default filename. F.x. we work with multiple file types, so it would need to omit an extension.
But any way to do it without default filenames would also cause maintainence headache down the line, or incurr substantial upfront cost.
The question is am I missing something? Any potential traps, better solutions, etc. would be appreciated. It definately feels like I am somewhat under- and/or overthinking this.
Basically, I want to be able to generate class definitions, compile the system, and save it for reuse. Would that involve a code walker, or is there a simpler option?
(save-lisp-and-die "isn't going to work for me")
Expanding to explain. I'm generating systems based on OpenAPI definitions, so a system roughly corresponds to an API client.
There will be dozens, if not hundreds of these.
The idea is to NOT keep them all in the image, but load at run time as required.
I see two possible routes here, and to some extent, I suspect they mainly differ in "the last mile" (as it were).
The route you seem to have settled on, run-time definition of classes and functions.
A route whereby you generate your function/class forms, but don't go the full way to get them "Live" in the image and instead emit the form(s) to a file.
I suspect that it would be possible to have most of the generating code shared between the two and for the first route have a wrapping macro that effectively returns a PROGN, and in the second calls a function to pretty-print what the macro would have returned on a stream.
Saying that, building a tailored environment and saving it to a "core" file is a pretty good way of getting excellent startup times.
we have a larger dataset and have several preprocessing scripts.
These scripts alter data in place.
It seems when I try to register it with dvc run it complains about cyclic dependencies (input is the same as output).
I would assume this is a very common use case.
What is the best practice here ?
Tried to google around but i did not see any solution to this (besides creating another folder for the output).
Usually, we split input and output into separate files rather than modify everything in place, not only for the separation of concerns principles but also to make it fit with tools like DVC.
Hope you can try this way instead.
Over the past few weeks I have been getting into Ada, for various different reasons. But there is no doubt that information regarding my personal reasons as to why I'm using Ada is out of scope for this question.
As of the other day I started using the gprbuild command that comes with the Windows version of GNAT, in order to get the benefits of a system for managing my applications in a project-related manner. That is, being able to define certain attributes on a per-project basis, rather than manually setting up the compile-phase myself.
Currently when naming my files, their names are based off of what seems to be a standard for the grpbuild, although I could very much be wrong. For periods (in the package structure), a - is put in the name of the file, for underscores, an _ is put accordingly. As such, a package by the name App.Test.File_Utils would have a file name of app-test-file_utils: .ads and .adb accordingly.
In the .gpr project file I have specified:
for Source_Dirs use ("app/src/**");
so that I am allowed to use multiple directories for storing my files, rather than needing to have them all in the same directory.
The Problem
The problem that arises, however, is that file names tend to get very long. As I am already putting the files in a directory based on the package name contained by the file, I was wondering if there is a way to somehow make the compiler understand that the package name can be retrieved from the file's directory name.
That is, rather than having to name the App.Test.File_Utils' file name app-test-file_utils, I would like it to reside under the app/test directory by the name file_utils.
Is this doable, or will I be stuck with the horrors of eventually having to name my files along the lines of: app-test-some-then-one-has-more_files-another_package-knew-test-more-important_package.ads? Granted, I have not missed something about how an Ada application should actually be structured.
What I have tried
I tried looking for answers in the package Naming configuration of the gpr files in the documentation, but to no avail. Furthermore I have been browsing the web for information, but decided it might be better to get help through Stackoverflow, so that other people who might struggle with this problem in the future (granted it is a problem in the first place) might also get help.
Any pointers in the right direction would be very helpful!
In the top-secret GNAT documentation there is a description of how to use non-default file names. It's a great deal of effort. You will probably give up, use the default names, and put them all in a single directory.
You can also simplify much of the effort by using GPS and letting it build your project file as you add files to your source directories.
I’m curious to know how feasible it is to get away from the dependency onto the application’s internal structure when you create an automated test case. Or you may need to rewrite the test case when a developer modifies a part of the code for a bug fix, etc.
We could write several automated test cases based on the applications internal object structure, but lets assume that the object hierarchy changes after 6 months or so, how do we approach these kind of issues?
I can't speak for other testing tools but at least in QTP's case the testing tool introduces a level of abstraction over the application so that non-functional changes in the application often (but not always) have no effect on the way the testing tool identifies the object.
For example in QTP all web elements are considered to be direct children of the document so that changes in the DOM (such as additional tables) don't change the object's description.
In TestComplete, there are a couple of ways to make sure that the changed app structure does not break you tests.
You can set up the Aliases tree of the Name Mapping feature. In this case, if the app structure is changed, you need to modify the Aliases tree appropriately and your test will stay working without requirement to modify them.
You can use the Extended Find feature of the Name Mapping in order to ignore parts of the the actual object tree and search for a needed objects on deeper levels.
This is what I was forced to do after losing all my work twice due to changes on the DOM structure:
Every single time I need to work with an object, I use the Find function with the ID of the object, searching for the object on the Page object. This way, whenever the DOM gets updated, my tests still run smoothly.
The only thing that will break my tests is if the object's ID get changed, but that's not very probable to happen.
Here you can find some examples of the helper functions I use.