I have a package which should only be a compile-time dependency, i.e.
included in the build but not part of output. Like "CopyLocal=false" works in non-sdk projects.
I tried <ExcludeAssets>runtime</ExcludeAssets> on PackageReference which sort of works but not consistently. Sometimes the dependency is also excluded from the build. (reopening the solution fixes it sometimes. It is all very random)
So I have 2 questions:
Is excluding "runtime" supposed to also exclude it from build or is that a bug?
Is there another way to include a dependency in the build but exclude it from runtime.
Background:
I have two types of dependencies where I need this functionality. One is a licensed product where a "generic" version of the assembly is used for the build. Similar to reference assemblies i Visual Studio. The real assembly is available in the production environment.
The second one is an assembly containing only constants. It is not needed at runtime since it is not used.
Excluding the constant-only assembly is just cosmetic but shipping the "generic" assemblies causes problems on e.g. updates where they can overwrite the real ones.
Related
I know you can access different modules (included using include) in a project via org.gradle.api.Project#getSubprojects(), and I know you can get the name and directories of separate builds that have been included (using includeBuild) via org.gradle.api.invocation.Gradle#getIncludedBuilds().
But how can my plugin get information such as the locations of Java source files and class files for projects included using includeBuild?
My goal here is to determine which files have changed in the current git branch (which I can do), and then collect their corresponding class files into a jar file that's used for our patching mechanism that inserts the patch jars at the front of the classpath rather than redeploying the whole application.
I don’t think it is a goal of Gradle to provide including builds with detailed information on included builds. Currently, the Gradle docs basically only state two goals for such composite builds:
combine builds that are usually developed independently, […]
decompose a large multi-project build into smaller, more isolated chunks […]
Actually, isolation between the involved builds seems to be an important theme in general:
Included builds do not share any configuration with the composite build, or the other included builds. Each included build is configured and executed in isolation.
For that reason, it also doesn’t seem to be possible or even desired to let an including build consume any build configurations (like task outputs) of an included build. That would only couple the builds and hence thwart the isolation goal.
Included builds interact with other builds only via dependency substitution:
If any build in the composite has a dependency that can be satisfied by the included build, then that dependency will be replaced by a project dependency on the included build.
So, if you’d like to consume specific parts of an included build from the including build, then you have to do multiple things:
Have a configuration in the included build which produces these “specific parts” as an artifact.
Have a configuration in the including build which consumes the artifact as a dependency.
Make sure that both configurations are compatible wrt. their capabilities so that dependency substitution works.
Let some task in the including build use the dependency artifact in whatever way you need.
Those things happen kind of automatically when you have a simple dependency between two Gradle projects, like a Java application depending on a Java library. But you can define your own kinds of dependencies, too.
The question is: would that really be worth the effort? Can’t you maybe solve your goal more easily or at least without relying on programmatically retrieved information on included builds? For example: if you know that your included build produces class files under build/classes/java/main, then maybe just take the classes of interest from there via org.gradle.api.initialization.IncludedBuild#getProjectDir().
I know, this may not be the answer you had hoped to get. I still hope it’s useful.
Our large C++ solution has a lot of project references between different projects and it seems to cause problems, most commonly it will try to link the wrong version of the dependency e.g. You'll build Project in release and get an error about missing library dependency_d.lib. Especially if you are using multiple build configurations.
Are project references considered bad practice working in C++ and developers should stick with the old way (#include directories and libraries listed in project settings)? Or does this simply suggest they've been set up wrong in our solution?
In our team we use #include despite of using vcpkg for the most libraries.
But you can set up different dependencies for each build configuration (Debug, Release etc.): just select desired Configuration at the top if the Project properties window. Your dependency _d .lib seems to be a Debug library.
I think there are some problems in your config. Also I haven't heard anything about project references are bad practice.
I have the following Java projects structure:
Util
|
-- Core
|
-- Services
|
-- Tools
The projects: Tools and Services references to Core and Util projects, the thing is that I ended up writing the same dependency over each project, there must be a better way to inherit the dependencies of the referenced projects and add new ones if needed.
I know about multi projects in Gradle, but this is not like a multi project, since I can basically take the Core library, compile it (which will then contain Core + Util libs) and use it in another project.
I wonder what would be the best way to approach this?
Repeating the same dependencies in every project is usually reasonable because in a bigger project you'll never know when they become different, and you don't want to deal with compilation/runtime problems when someone changes common dependencies list.
I believe that it is more pragmatic to add dependency analyser plugin to your build. It will help you to remove unnecessary dependencies and explicitly add transitive dependencies. And if you add this plugin to your build chain, it will help you to keep your dependencies healthy in the future. Pick this plugin here gradle-dependency-analyze, or maybe there is a better fork or equivalent somewhere.
You are actually out of options in your case because there are only two kinds of dependencies: (1) external (some other jar artefact) or (2) internal (another module in a multimodule build).
2.1 When you use an external maven-like dependency it will come to you with own dependencies (they are named "transitive dependencies"). It means that if you do compile 'yourgroup:Core:1.0' then you will get Util as a transitive dependency. But as I mentioned above, it is better to list transitive dependencies explicitly if they are used during compilation or to prevent them from being accidentally removed and crash your application in runtime.
2.2. If your projects live in the same version control repository and usually change and build together, then the multimodule layout is your best choice. In this case, you will refer to Core dependency like compile project(':Util:Core') and it will grab Util as a transitive dependency as well. And you will be able to do what you asked for and define dependencies for Services and Tools once - inside subprojects {} closure in the Core/build.gradle.
Having multimodule built doesn't limit you from using Core library elsewhere. No matter if it is a multimodule build or not, you can always add maven-publish plugin to Core/build.gradle, execute publishToMavenLocal task and reference to Core.jar from another project the same way you do for external dependencies.
You can always put your common code (like the one which will add common dependencies) in the external gradle file or custom plugin and apply it in Services and Tools.
I have a Gradle build that predominantly consists of Java code, which also contains some native code. The native components are published into an Ivy repository (Artifactory). They contain DLLs, LIBs, headers and so forth. These components are currently published using a manual process; I don't yet have a solution that uses Gradle to build the C++ code.
The native components exist in both 32-bit and 64-bit variants, for both release and debug builds. So far I've been publishing them using classifiers such as release-x86, release-x64, etc. (and putting artifacts marked with all classifiers in the same configuration).
I haven't been able to use the classifier to declare dependencies on these components (I asked about this here: Does Gradle support classifiers for Ivy repositories? but didn't get any answers, I think I failed the first 'S' in SSCCE).
The only way I've found to filter the artifacts is to depend on the configuration that delivers e.g. the DLLs and to then filter the downloaded files by name to get e.g. just the x86 release DLLs (as the classifier is part of it), which seems a bit of a kludge.
I've considered having separate configurations for each combination of x86/x64, release/debug, but it doesn't feel like the right solution. That's four configurations just to encapsulate the DLLs, for runtime dependencies; I'd need four more for the corresponding compile-time dependencies (LIBs, PDBs headers).
Has anyone else achieved this in a way they're happy with?
I have an msbuild project which builds a SLN file from visual studio which holds all the projects in (about 70+ project), and a lot of the projects are dependent on each other meaning they need to be build in order - sometimes a developer forgets to set the build order manually in visual studio in the solution file causing the msbuild on a clean solution to fail as something gets built out of order/cant find a dll.
Is there a way for msbuild to take all projects and work out the dependencies and build the projects in order, if there is how do i do this? using an MSBuild task? With current tries it seems to just build in the order it reads the projects in - if i pass in a list of project files+paths.
Currently the only way i can think to solve this is a external app which scans the proj files and references and then manually creates a solution each time.. but this seems overkill for such a simple thing.
Anyone solved / seen this before?
How are you calling MSBuild? If you point MSBuild to the solution file, it should be able to work out the dependencies. If you point it to individual project files, then it won't be able to resolve any project references.
If you don't use project references you can still control the dependency order in a solution by using the "Project Dependencies" dialog to manually set the dependencies.
While Project Dependencies are hard to maintain and not shared across .sln files, Project References are honoured and do dictate the order consistently - see the ResolveReferences task in Microsoft.Common.targets.
ASIDE: A 'friend of mine' may 'during a refactoring' have accidentally stubbed out their Build Task and it's DependsOnTargets linkage to the Microsoft.Common.targets ResolveReferences task and ended up with ProjectReferences not being honoured in ways that sound like the question here. If you read some of the posts, you might get the idea that it's all mad shaky - it's not; the shaky bits are the Project dependencies, not the Project references.
See this excellent MSDN Blog article by Dan Moseley that really explains the topic, including some useful workaround strategies. (via this mildly related issue with building xUnit.net).
If all of your dependent projects are in the solution and you are using Project references, Visual Studio should manage the dependencies for your and build in order of that dependency list.
It sounds like you are not using project references. I always recommend project references.
This is an old question but the issue was most likely that projects in the solution used direct references to dependent DLLs (Add Reference > select Browse tab > select dependent DLL) instead of using project references (Add Reference > select Projects tab > select dependent project). With direct references, Visual Studio can't figure out the dependency chain. You must tell it by right clicking on the solution node and select Properties. Pick Common Properties > Project Dependencies to set the required projects. Mr. Klaus is correct but I wanted to document how to fix this issue.
While it is correct that MSBuild should observe the build order when you use project dependencies there is one caveat. It doesn't at present observe the reverse build order when building the clean target (as I have blogged about here). For regular build however it works nicely as described by others here.
I am using Msbuild 4 found at c:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\MSBuild.exe
It seems to solve the problem.
There is no Microsoft tool that will examine all the dependencies of your 70+ projects and generate a solution file with dependencies clearly declared for you.
You have to do that on your own by using 2 different methods:
Manually specify a dependency, for the solution, in visual studio.
Specify a project reference in the project file itself.
If you don't want to do that, then you will have to swallow the medicine and accept that you will to use an external tool to do that for you. Yes it's clunky but it can be made to work. If you check in your solution file to your source control you can mitigate these problems. As long as you have an active solution file to work with.
I at one point didn't, and I had 600+ projects in the build. So I wrote a tool (years ago) that would automate 99% of this work. It uses the .NET MSBuild API's to read the msbuild files (no recreating the wheel here with xml api's). It then examines outputs and inputs and generate a dependency tree which I can then do a few things with it:
Spit out a solution file.
Do a dependency sort (also a topological sort in academia), and spit out those projects in order they should be built (for a non-parallel type of build, which can be useful sometimes).
print out all sorts of diagnostic information about dependencies.
The only limitation I have seen with the tool is with a few crazy COM dependencies which are pretty sketchy anyways. Which I added a super simple work-around.