It's unclear how the repositories are connected and tied together. Each git repo has a different package of cs files, with their own unique features and design schemas. Rather than a hierarchical design structure, where in my understanding or example:
Abp-base (free git repo), would have core essentials
AbpZero-paid (membership subscription to premium git repo), would add additional features into their design that would encourage others to pay for.
AbpZeroTemplate-demo (download from website, not git), would be a sample utilizing the paid content to push and drive sales to unlock the tool to it's full potential.
I downloaded and even paid for the different tiers, but all of the contents are all over the place. When I tried to combine them so that I could take advantage of a complete product, nothing lined up properly, and I get breakage everywhere.
How am I supposed to change the crucial schema design flaws when half of the .proj links to .dll that expect the class to be structured a certain way?
Example:
User is structured: "Name", "Surname". But i want it to be "Firstname", "Lastname." Some may ask, what's the difference? Just like how "Maiden name" is different from "Last name" or "Family name." Those little nuances are'nt procedural thinking. If you went to a stranger and asked "what's your name?" and they said "Chuck Jones," you would then ask to clarify, "What's your first name?"
Each git repository is running off of a different versioning number, that doesn't match with their counterpart. AbpZero is on a stable release version 5.x, and you go to GitHub for Abp and it's saying version 3.x is stable and green. And one of them is using User<TTenant,TUser> as a class, and the other is using User<TUser>. So not only am I getting mixed signals on how they're supposed to work (because git repos point to each other, and rely on .dll for continuity) but they're also not even sharing the same coding structure.
Can anybody help me merge the old and new together, or tell me the direction on how the design is being built?
Disclaimer: I'm a contributor to ASP.NET Boilerplate
ASP.NET Core is a web framework developed by Microsoft, as you know. There are plenty different applications based on it.
ABP is an application framework on top of ASP.NET Core (and MVC 5.x but it's a different story - I skip). It tries to help real life applications on top of ASP.NET Core. It has many features like advanced authorization, background jobs, javascript proxies, DDD infrastructure and so on.. This is completely free and developed on Github: https://github.com/aspnetboilerplate/aspnetboilerplate Thousands of developers are actively using it to build their applications.
ABP framework does not provide a User Interface itself, but provides the infrastructure. So, you should create an empty ASP.NET Core application, add nuget packages, configure the framework and modules, create a UI layout and some basic pages to start your development. This is also a time consuming work. That's why we have created "STARTUP TEMPLATES". There are two startup template:
(A) A free & open source startup template can be downloaded here: https://aspnetboilerplate.com/Templates (It just gets the code from https://github.com/aspnetboilerplate/module-zero-core-template and renames solution for you). This is a simple startup template (but more powerful then ASP.NET Core's standard template when you make File > New Project).
(B) A PAID startup template, which becomes the product on https://aspnetzero.com/. This template has much much more features on top of the framework. You can see all on its web site. Since it's a paid product, the Github repository is private and only available to paid customers.
You either start with template (A) or template (B). You CAN NOT combine them. I believe it's very obvious. For instance. Microsoft provides different startup templates for ASP.NET Core: One of them is Angular, one of them is Razor Pages, one of them is empty... and so on.. So, you select one of them based on your needs.
Both of (A) and (B) templates work on the ABP framework and adds via nuget packages (it's already combined/integrated).
So, after this explanation, I believe no one would even think how to combine them.
How am i supposed to change the crucial schema design flaws when half of the .proj links to .dll that expect the class to be structured a certain way?
When you use a framework or a pre-build solution, you have significant advantages. However, there is nothing in the World that has only advantages. Every solution/framework/library will come with its own limitations, you like or not.
With that in mind.. Despite of other vendors, we provide the FULL SOURCE CODE! User class or another schema class is not inside a CLOSED/SECRET DLL. They are on nuget packages and are open source as I described before. They are framework code. If you want to change the framework code it's always possible. Just download the ABP framework on Github repository, include into your solution, remove nuget packages and add project references. Then you can freely change the User class. Source code is open & here:
https://github.com/aspnetboilerplate/aspnetboilerplate/blob/dev/src/Abp.ZeroCore/Authorization/Users/AbpUser.cs
https://github.com/aspnetboilerplate/aspnetboilerplate/blob/dev/src/Abp.Zero.Common/Authorization/Users/AbpUserBase.cs
Each git repository is running off of a different versioning number
Why we follow the same version numbers for different products those are released and developed separately? Does Microsoft have same version number for all products?
I wish i had enough money as the next guy to afford throwing around $1600 a year just to resolve issues with poorly documented code, but sadly i do not
There are thousands of customers paid it and they are happy about our product and they are renewing their licenses to be able to access to latest source code after 1 year. If anybody wants a refund, we always provide a money back without any question. Refund request ratio is smaller than 0.5% because developers love our framework and product.
My membership expired while i was resolving conflict issues with the code, and i immediately lost the ability to use git repo connected to that service
You can contact info#aspnetzero.com and request the latest version of the code (when the time your license expired). We always help to our customers about that. It would be better if you had contact with us.
Related
I have a few (3) core projects I want to share across many solutions (12+).
So, say I have 12 websites and they use some shared back end core code (in this case I'm not talking about shared js, css or views - I'm talking about business objects, entity stuff, etc.).
I need to be able to identify which site has which version of the shared code in dev, test, prod, etc. so a developer can get the website code and get the right version of the shared code to develop or patch the website.
And then the MS build server needs to know which version of the shared code to get for the deployment.
To solve this, I'm seeing people branch that core code - which seems absurd to do 12+ times. (I do expect to branch the core code sometimes for things like hot fixes and long running projects.)
I'm also seeing people copy DLLs of the core code and check those in.
I would think I would list the dependencies for my solutions based on TFS label names somewhere so developers can easily get the apps running with the right code and given a tfs label the build server can get the code for the website and the proper version of the core code. I'm using TFS & VS 2013 at the moment too, so there's that.
So, is there a way to do this that's straightforward, supportable/scale-able and intuitive? Thanks - Peter
Labels in TFS is very limited. For example once the label created you couldn't change and update it. If one of your core projects updated, did you need to create a new label for it. If you did and use the new label for one of your solution. However you found there are some bugs in this update, you need a newer update of your core project to fix the bug. Then a newer label created, you need to manually maintain the dependencies which seems not to be an easy job.
Moreover how to list the dependencies for your solutions based on TFS label names? TFS don't have this built-in option, seems the only way is store it in a txt or someother files and check in the source control. Every time the developer open a website application need to check it first and get label from server to their workspace and work on it.
Usually the purpose of sharing code between projects is reducing maintenance. There’s two main code sharing paths: source and binary. The difference between them you could take a look at this blog: Code Sharing in Team Foundation Server
Sharing code between products is a primary cause of quality erosion and elevated bug counts. I would recommend you to build separately and sharing binary output through NuGet which use preferable.
Also take a look below similar questions:
Sharing code between solutions in TFS
TFS 2010 Branch Across Team Projects - Best Practices
We have a website application that stores data and pictures for a specific customer. We are about to release the same application for use by another customer. The second application will eventually be customized for the second customer. Eventually we hope to have several customers using their own versions of the application.
We are using ASP.NET in Visual Studio 2012. Should we:
clone the existing application and maintain separate code bases?
add a project to the existing solution for the new customer?
We have searched for an answer to but this seems to be a rare situation.
Thanks.
I dont think its rare at all. SAP and Maximo use this a a businiess model. Same core but each package customized to the clients specifications. I have done this (on a much much smaller scale) with some of the programs that we have.
We always start a new project rather than just copy the old. No telling what is in the old one that references the old client. Sort of embarasing when an About window that you forgot about is for someone elses company.
All the code, forms, reports that are customizeable should be in the project for that customer. All of the code, forms, reports that are standard should be in a library.
It really depends on the scope of the application. I've had to do this internally with the company I'm working for; I wrote one solution for one company, then the sister company found out and wanted the same and had to implement it there.
I had a fairly small project to work on, so it was easy to make it universal (while also keeping things rooting from the same code base). All i did was:
break out the unique setting [page title?] using appSettings or similar.
add a new configuration to your solution. Then take advantage of the *.config migrations to:
set connectionStrings
specify appSettings values
When it comes to unique business logic, I had the luxury of using the *.config migrations (most of the data I gathered came from WCF endpoints of services local to the company)--so I lucked out. However, you could make generic interfaces within the app then break out implementation for each company in to separate libraries.
I am looking for some advice on how to allow easy customisation and extension of a core product on a per client basis. I know it is probably too big a question. However we really need to get some ideas as if we get the setup of this wrong it could cause us problems for years. I don't have a lot of experience in customising and extending existing products.
We have a core product that we usually bespoke on a per client basis. We have recently rewritten the the product in C# 4 with an MVC3 frontend. We have refactored and now have 3 projects that compose the solution:
Core domain project (namespace - projectname.domain.*) - consisting of domain models (for use by EF), domain service interfaces etc (repository interfaces)
Domain infrastructure project (namespace -projectname.infrastructure.*) - that implements the domain service-EF Context, Repository implementation, File upload/download interface implementations etc.
MVC3 (namespace - projectname.web.*)-project that consists of controllers, viewmodels, CSS, content,scripts etc. It also has IOC (Ninject) handling DI for the project.
This solution works fine as a standalone product. Our problem is extending and customising the product on a per client basis. Our clients usually want the core product version given to them very quickly (usually within a couple of days of signing a contract) with branded CSS and styling. However 70% of the clients then want customisations to change the way it functions. Some customisations are small such as additional properties on domain model, viewmodel and view etc. Others are more significant and require entirely new domain models and controllers etc.
Some customisations appear to be useful to all clients, so periodically we would like to change them from being customisations and add them to the core.
We are presently storing the source code in TFS. To start a project we usually manually copy the source into a new Team Project. Change the namespace to reflect the clients name and start customising the basic parts and then deploy to Azure. This obviously results in an entirely duplicated code base and I’m sure isn’t the right way to go about it. I think we probably should be having something that provides the core features and extends/overrides where required. However I am really not sure how to go about this.
So I am looking for any advice on the best project configuration that would allow:
Rapid deployment of the code – so easy to start off a new client to
allow for branding/minor changes
Prevent the need for copying and pasting of code
Use of as much DI as possible to keep it loosely coupled
Allow for bespoking of the code on a
per client basis
The ability to extend the core product in a single
place and have all clients gain that functionality if we get the
latest version of the core and re-deploy
Any help/advice is greatly appreciated. Happy to add more information that anyone thinks will help.
I may not answer to this completly, but here some advices:
Don't copy your code, ever, whatever the reason is.
Don't rename the namespace to identify a given client version. Use the branches and continuous integration for that.
Choose a branching model like the following: a root branch called "Main", then create one branch from Main per major version of your product, then one branch per client. When you develop something, target from the start in which branch you'll develop depending on what you're doing (a client specific feature will go in the client branch, a global version in the version branch or client branch if you want to prototype it at first, etc.)
Try the best to rely on Work Item to track features you develop to know in which branch it's implemented to ease merge across branches.
Targeting the right branch for you dev is the most crucial thing, you don't have to necessary define some hard rules of "what to do in which occasion", but try to be consistant.
I've worked on a big 10 years project with more than 75 versions and what we usually did was:
Next major version: create a new branch from Main, dev Inside
Next minor version: dev in the current major branch, use Labels to mark each minor versions Inside your branch.
Some complex functionnal features was developped in the branch of the client that asked for it, then reversed integrated in the version branch when we succeeded in "unbranded" it.
Bug fixes in client branch, then reported in other branches when needed. (you have to use the Work Item for that or you'll get easily lost).
It's my take on that, other may have different point of view, I relied a lot on the Work Item for traceability of the code, which helped a lot for the delivery and reporting of code.
EDIT
Ok, I add some thought/feedback about branches:
In Software Configuration Management (SCM) you have two features to help you for versionning: branches and labels. Each one is not better nor worst than the other, it depends on what you need:
A Label is used to mark a point in time, using a label, for you to later be able to go back to that point if needed.
A Branch is used to "duplicate" your code to be able to work on two versions at the same time.
So using branches only depends on what you want to be able to do. If you have to work one many different versions (say one per client) at the same time: there's no other way to deal with it than using branches.
To limit the number of branches you have to decide what will be a new branch or what will be marked by a label for: Client Specific Versions, Major Version, Minor Version, Service Pack, etc.
Using branches for Client versions looks to be a no brainer.
Using one branch for each Major version may be the toughest choice for you to make. If you choose to use only one branch for all major versions, then you won't have the flexibility to work on different major versions at the same time, but your number of branches will be the lowest possible.
Finally, Jemery Thompson has a good point when he says that not all your code should be client dependent, there are some libraries (typically the lowest level ones) that shouldn't be customized per client. What we do usually is using a separated branch tree (which is not per client) for Framework, cross-cutting, low level services libraries. Then reference these projects in the per client version projects.
My advice for you is using Nuget for these libraries and create nuget package for them, as it's the best way to define versionned dependencies. Defining a Nuget package is really easy, as well as setting up a local Nuget server.
I just worried that with 30 or 40 versions (most of which aren't that different) branching was adding complexity.
+1 Great question, its more of a business decision you'll have to make:
Do I want a neat code-base where maintenance is easy and features and fixes get rolled out quickly to all our customers
or do I want a plethora of instances of one codebase split up, each with tiny tweaks that is hard (EDIT: unless your a ALM MVP who can "unbrand" things) to merged into a trunk.
I agree with almost everthing #Nockawa mentioned except IMHO dont substitute extending your code architecture with branches.
Definitely use a branch/trunk strategy but as you mentioned too many branches makes it harder to quickly roll-out site wide features and hinder project-wide continuous integration. If you wish to prevent copy/pasting limit the number of branches.
In terms of a coding solution here is what I believe you are looking for:
Modules/Plug-ins, Interfaces and DI is right on target!
Deriving custom classes off base ones (extending the DSL per customer, Assembly.Load())
Custom reporting solution (instead of new pages a lot of custom requests could be reports)
Pages with spreadsheets (hehe I know - but funnily enough it works!)
Great examples of the module/plugin point are CMS's such as DotNetNuke or Kentico. Other idea's could be gained by looking at Facebook's add-in architecture, plugin's for audio and video editing, 3D modeling apps (like 3DMax) and games that let you build your own levels.
The ideal solution would be a admin app that you can choose your
modules (DLL's), tailor the CSS (skin), script the dB, and auto-deploy
the solution upto Azure. To acheive this goal plugin's would make so
much more sense, the codebase wont be split up. Also when an
enhancement is done to a module - you can roll it out to all your
clients.
You could easily do small customisations such as additional properties on domain model, viewmodel and view etc with user controls, derived classes and function overrides.
Do it really generically, say a customer says I want to a label that tally's everyone's age in the system, make a function called int SumOfField(string dBFieldName, string whereClause) and then for that customers site have a label that binds to the function. Then say another customer wants a function to count the number of product purchases by customer, you can re-use it: SumOfField("product.itemCount","CustomerID=1").
More significant changes that require entirely new domain models and controllers etc would fit the plug-in architecture. An example might be a customer needs a second address field, you would tweak your current Address user-control to be a plug-in to any page, it would have settings to know which dB table and fields it can implement its interface to CRUD operations.
If the functionality is customised per client in 30-40 branches
maintainability will become so hard as I get the feeling you wont be
able to merge them together (easily). If there is a chance this will
get really big you dont want to manage 275 branches. However, if its
that specialised you have to go down to the User-Control level for
each client and "users cant design their own pages" then having
Nockawa 's branching strategy for the front-end is perfectly
reasonable.
Following SO thread shows Managing DLL references in multiple projects across different solutions. Additionally I want to know how to manage the version control for these dependency DLLs ?
Should the DLL (which is published to other external projects) be committed too, every time code change happens ?
Team Development with TFS Guide (Final Release)
This guide has proven to be invaluable to my team. They describe several scenarios and what the pros and cons are of each. For anyone managing a TFS environment this is a must read.
With regards to the DLL's from external projects. We will keep a copy of the source in TFS if we can get access to the source some times, use your best judgement. We keep a copy of the DLL in source control always. The DLL goes into a "SharedBinaries" folder next to source code so that they can be branched together.
It is critical that you be able to branch these DLL's along with source. It is also critical that they be in TFS so that you can do an automated build with little or no build machine configuration. My own personal goal while managing TFS is to be ready for a new developer to join the team and with a single get of source code be able to execute a successful build for local debugging.
EDIT: Different department builds DLL
Like all good IT answers I have to start with "it depends". If the other department is truly segregated from your department and you have little or no knowledge of what they are working or when they will be working on it. If they just occasionally tell you that they have done some things and you should now incorporate the changes then I would lean towards the DLL being committed to the repository every time that the department consuming it wants to change it.
If on the other hand we are really just talking about different teams in the same department where there is lots of cross talk and water cooler communication then I would expect that you could making something else work with just some project references.
It sounds to me like it is the former and not the latter situation that you find yourself in today. I would try to get the department that is creating the shared code to "release" the shared code like Microsoft releases the .NET Framework. Get them to just build the API and give you some DLL's and some documentation. Then the groups that are incorporating those DLL's into there products can check them in separately into a repository of there own control and isolate themselves from code churn while the department working on the these reused DLL's can work on the next version of them.
You should take this all with a grain of salt. This is just one guy rambling on about what might be a good idea. There are many more ways to solve these problems and they are all correct given different circumstances. If you are asking 5 people and you get 5 different responses I wouldn't be surprised.
We're currently using Visual Source Safe and BugNet and looking to migrate up and away from VSS. I've been pushing for either SVN ( a) we're an ASP.NET shop, b) DCVS is not an option - no matter how much I like Hg ;-) or TFS. Well we finally got a new dev server, so I talked the boss into installing TFS on it (30 day trial). In the meantime, we had started experimenting with FogBugz. We really like FogBugz for about 80% of what we want to do, and the other 20% is probably stuff that we don't know what we want.
I'm pushing for TFS because it allows for IDE integrated (mostly) everything.
He's pushing for FogBugz because he can group tasks by customer and then project and manage everything from one dashboard. (which means I lose most of my IDE integration - no huge loss I agree)
Does TFS support a single dashboard that would span all our solutions (in this case each solution is a full app that we sell to a vertical market client) and let us assign workitems to each solution-spanning-group?
So for instance I think we envision something like this:
PROJECT1 - Bugtracker and workitems
PROJECT2 - Bugtracker and workitems
PROJECT3 - Bugtracker and workitems
CUSTOMER1 - Deployment schedules, required features, specific notes (Uses PROJECT1, PROJECT2)
CUSTOMER2 - Deployment schedules, required features, specific notes (Uses PROJECT2, PROJECT3)
CUSTOMER3 - Deployment schedules, required features, specific notes (Uses PROJECT1, PROJECT3)
Hopefully that makes sense. naturally it's more complicated than this but I think I've given the details enough to paint a picture.
I offered the option of creating dummy projects per customer but he doesn't like that and it doesn't really give us the single dashboard view that we're hoping to end up with (and that FogBugz as we've sorta implmented things does do now).
Has anyone got a good suggestion on a management app that would accomplish what both of us want?
EDIT: since I got some good responses (albeit not what I wanted) I'm going to close this for now. However, I think this is something that would be a good thirdparty market and/or a feature in an upcoming TF release. Feel free to post with more ideas if you come across this later.
TFS allows you to have multiple Team Projects. Each is effectively a root folder for source control. However, you can move files/folders between projects in source control, and the Work Items are global (shared across all Team Projects). For Work Items all the projects do is provide a level at which you can filter out work items (so you look at bugs only for this project, etc).
So Team Projects allow you to nicely compartmentalise your projects, but they are only virtual compartments, with few limitations on moving items between those compartments.
The only problem I've found with multiple Team Projects is that you have to branch a folder (and cannot branch a Team Project) so if you wish to make a branch that spans several projects you have to have several branches, which means severwal workspace mappings and several merges for each operation.
For customers we simply added a custom "customer" field to our work items that allowed us to relate a work item to a spacific customer.
When you look at work items you can then apply SQL-like filtering (e.g. TeamProject=#Project AND Customer="BiggsAndCo" AND WorkItemType="Bug" would find all the bugs reported by BiggsAndCo in the current TeamProject)
There are a lot of third party add-ins for VSTS to enhance the TFS experience (thankfully, as raw TFS provides very basic and clumsy UI), and you can use the API to write your own tools to query the TFS database too, so you shouldn't have too much of a problem getting a dashboard thta you find useful. You'll need to do some searches to see if the solutions out there match your requirements though.
One way to do this is would be to have a single team project that covers all of your solutions and use subfolders in source control and items paths on your work items to separate feature requirements, bugs, and so forth by project.
It's the customer specific information across a subset of projects that you'll probably need to do some customisation in order to report on since you have a many-to-many relationship that TFS work items don't support out of the box.
Hope that helps