Since this is a beta-1 release, Is there anything which I should especially be worried about?
I've used it for a long time and know several others that have done so without any problems. So I wouldn't be worried if I were you. But I haven't tested all the stuff like SQL queries and other db stuff you can do with drush. But it's really good for downloading modules, disabling/enabling modules, clearing cache and other stuff like that, that you tend to do a lot when developing.
Drush is awesome. It does it's job well. The only thing to be wary of are things like:
Have you modified any contrib modules
yourself?
"Stable" new releases may contain
bug(s) the maintainer did not
catch.
But Drush does provide a backup of contrib modules to /backups.
Drush is pretty safe when it comes to install/uninstall modules or themes (usually it also makes back-ups) but KEEP in mind when you update the core to back-up your entire web site. I have some web sites that I do maintenance and are not build by me that if I run:
drush up
I get weird behavior like: a theme gets deleted (that was the way it was built, I found out that moving the theme from root/themes/themename to root/sites/all/themes/custom/themename fix the problem), or the whole website just stops working (the build contains double code modules folder like: root/modules and root/modules/modules). So in general if your web site is build with best practices, drush is awesome, if not you might run into trouble.
Related
I would like to know where can i find or whats the official process to consider when you have to update both the modules and the core in a Drupal 7 site at same time.
I mean, what do i have to update first?
Modules then Core, Core then modules or it doesn't matter at all or it depends of each module documentation?
Also i would like to know if this process changed in Drupal 8.
I have found the process to update each one but not together.
I always do modules then core, but if you have a good reference or any article with a justification for this will be better to understand why.
Thanks in advance
Firstly I would suggest you to use drush commands to upgrade core version. It will take care of the rest. But if you want to do manually then you can continue reading below answer.
In my opinion you have to update the core first ( if there is latest core and the core required modules available ) and then you can update other modules i.e contrib modules. At the end custom modules based on compatibility.
After placing the latest code you can use drush updb or {your domain}/update.php to update your database.
Or else you can do it in the following way:
Download latest drupal code, place your custom code inside it and use the old database and then run update. This is not the correct way but sometimes it works.
Note: Before doing any of the steps above always work in local environment and keep a backup. Never try it on production.
Thanks
The way we have to update our site now is to create a copy of the website project locally. Make changes. Then take the dll and any other new files and copy them to the project on the server. Sometimes they want us to work on something they need uploaded right away and other times work on something that needs to be uploaded in the future. So I have to do silly things to give them what they want now and exclude what I am working on for later. What is the best way to resolve this? I just wanna have to upload a piece of the project and certainly not the a whole new dll everytime.
source control w/ branching. Then you can keep the production branch clean while you work on your future enhancements. There are plenty of great free source control tools, see below.
Git
Subversion
Mercurial
In my line of work I'm often retrieving very specific versions of crusty ASP.NET web apps from their long-forgotten repositories, making minor changes and then recompiling.
A major annoyance in this process is having to create a virtual directory for every web project that I need to recompile. I don't have any problems with the process, but it's tedious and still a very manual process on .NET 1 projects.
Is there a fairly simple way to recompile the binaries of the csproj without setting up a new virtual directory?
Edit: I don't mind using command line tools, or external solutions, as long as they're fairly simple and straightforward.
I'm not sure there's any other way unless you can convert the project to vs 2005.
I ran into a similar issue when i was dealing with a web project that i needed to manage a few branches that all wanted the same virtual directory. I wrote this small app that does some switching of the virtual for you automagically.
I have added on to the app to make it more functional (supporting more than just one project at once)... and i'm sorry to say i have never update the code on the blog. This might just serve as a good starting place for you to manage your virtual directories.
I will try to get the latest code up on the blog soon and i will update this post when i do.
but in the meantime check out the source here
ps. i know this version of the code needs to be cleaned up this version was just a proof of concept.
Is it possible to exclude a folder in a web project from being published? We've got some documentation and scripts that included in a particular project folder, and are added to the project, but when I do a VS publish, I don't want them to go up to the production server.
I know they shouldn't be in the project, but I thought I'd find a workaround before I try to convince the owner to modify the way he's doing things.
Old question, but I found if I mark the folder as hidden in Windows Explorer, it doesn't show/publish in your solution.
This is good for example to stop original photoshop images being included in uploads which aren't used and are big. Anything more complex though you'll probably want to write your own publish tool.
This doesn't answer your question, exactly, but my feeling is that unless you are a single developer publishing to a server, you would be better off doing builds on a dedicated workstation or server using MSBuild (or some other building and deploying solution) directly (and thereby would be able to very granularly control what goes up to production). MSBuild can not only build, but using some extensions (including open source types), it can also deploy. Microsoft has a product called MSDeploy in beta, and that might be an even better choice, but having no experience with it, I cannot say for certain.
In our situation, we have a virtual workstation as a build box, and all we have to do is double click on the batch file that starts up an MSBuild project. It labels all code using VSS, gets latest version, builds the solution, and then deploys it to both servers. We deploy exactly what we want to deploy and nothing more. We're quite happy with it.
The only downside, if it could be considered a downside, is that at least one of us had to learn how to use MSBuild. VS itself uses MSBuild.
For the files you don't want to go, loop at the properties and set the 'Copy to Output Directory' to 'Do not copy'
This option is not available for directories, however.
Can you not exclude them from the project through visual studio to stop them being published. They will the still exist in the filesystem
The only way that you can do this to my knowledge would be to exclude it from the project, do the publish, then re-include it in the project. That can be an issue.
There are probably much better ways to solve this problem but when we publish a build for our dev servers, we'll run a batch file when the build is complete to remove the un-needed folders and web.configs (so we don't override the ones that are already deployed).
According to http://www.mahingupta.com/mahingupta/blog/post/2009/12/04/AspNet-website-Exclude-folder-from-compilation.aspx you can just give the folder the "hidden" attribute in windows explorer and it won't publish. I tested this and it works for me.
Seems like a straightforward solution for quick and dirty purposes, but I don't think it will carry through our version control (mercurial).
Select all the files that should not be published.
Go to Properties
Set
Build Action -> None
Have to repeat the process for each sub-directory.
Setting up Flex project for group development can be a bit tricky. There are lots of little local settings that might need to be tweaked in order to have a project that can be easily checked out.
I've had limited success using the built-in import/export flex project utilities. I seem to wind up editing by hand a lot and I think I might be missing something.
UPDATE
I neglected to mention originally that my goal is to make it possible to checkout a project from subversion and get up and running with as little fuss as possible. The biggest problems that I have run into all revolve around managing the "dot" files and how to make them flexible enough to deal with different developer environments.
For example, even with just me, I would like to have this ability: at work, I use a Vista machine and at home I use a Mac. There are certainly differences in the way certain paths are described, but they really are quite similar. On Vista, the flex root is c:/ColdFusion8/wwwroot, on OS X, it is /Applications/ColdFusion8. I have been able to set up a linked resource path variable for both CF_FLEX_SERVER and WEBSERVER that I then reference using the ${WEBSERVER}/myProject syntax.
So far, it seems to work pretty well, but I find there are a few places that it still has issues. Specifically, in the .project file you find something like:
<linkedResources>
<link>
<name>bin-debug</name>
<type>2</type>
<location>c:/inetpub/wwwroot/myProject-debug</location>
</link>
</linkedResources>
Unfortunately, if I try to change the location entity to ${WEBSERVER}/wwwroot/myProject-debug, flex throws a compiler error. That's a shame, because pretty much everything else works.
I have worked through this problem before and generally set my projects up as such:
Application/trunk/source/ <-- workspace is here (can also be in 'trunk')
Application/trunk/source/Application <-- Application here
I DO keep my project (.actionScriptProperties, .flexProperties, .project, .settings) in SVN, but NOT my workspace (.metadata) because it's too big.
I find that importing projects via Import -> Flex Project enforces alot of restrictions. For example, if your workspace was in the 'trunk' directory above then importing as a Flex Project will cause the project to be copies into trunk/Application or simply complain about the location.
The better way to go about it is to create the workspace and then Import -> [General] Existing Projects into Workspace. The only difference is that you will have to manually add the Flex Development perspective.
Edit: I'd also recommend setting your compiler options to "Use default SDK" and then setting the appropriate SDK as default. This will prevent commit-tennis when each developer names his SDK differently.
Since Flex Builder is written on top of Eclipse, it can integrate with Subclipse. This allows you to pretty easily tag files as 'SVN ignore' to avoid project-specific settings. I've used this to add my Flex projects to an existing SVN repository, which I've checked out to multiple sites. I have noticed a few issues here and there (some checkins get errors, but they're relatively rare), but it generally works.