I always use composer packages in Laravel but I never changed one. This is my first time and I don't want to do it incorrect.
I need to use and change a packages foo/bar. Everything that follows now is just guessed:
I forked the repo
I created a develop branch
I added a vcs to my composer.json
"require": {
//...
"foo/bar": "dev-develop",
},
"repositories": [
{
"type": "vcs",
"url": "https://github.com/thisisme/bar"
}
],
composer update
Now I have the thisisme/bar fork in my vendor folder in foo.
So far so good. Now I can use my own fork.
But currently, as I don't know what is good practice to modify the repo, I cloned the repo to a completely different location. Then I push my changes there and run composer update in my project to get the changes. But this is a pain.
Do I need to have a sub git in my project in vendor/foo with
git remote add origin https://github.com/thisisme/bar.git. Because "git in git" feels wrong and finally is not really working as git commands seem to interact with the "parent git".
While VonCs answer is correct regarding git, I'm not certainly sure that git submodule support is well aligned with composer(1) vendor dir for packages from a VCS repository. At least I have not experimented much with it and when I use a composer configuration with a VCS git repository, I normally don't need that1.
While composer(1) has support for git for vendor packages, it is on repository level, that is, you can have your own repository for your package (as you have configured it shown in your question) and then composer takes care of updating (or giving a warnings about local changes).
composer(1) supports this with its own remote for the packages (non-bare) clone (in the source install, read on).
So yes, what you describe ("But this is a pain."), is as long as you don't use it to your benefit. While you develop your (cloned) package, you don't need to run composer update all the time.
.git
composer.json
vendor/foo/bar/.git
A Composer project with two Git repositories
This is why IMHO "git in git" must not feel wrong. Similar to git sub-modules, git supports this very well. By default it even keeps track in the parent project of the current revision (changes) of the sub-project but without having the information of the remote - as it is local (gitlink).
You won't see this thought as within the tree, the gitlink would be at vendor/foo/bar and commonly (& given that) vendor is git ignored, no version tracking in the main project for vendor/foo/bar/.git - but there in the sub-project.
This is not a problem as Composer manages that git sub-project for you (the initial clone and further checkouts) in terms of your main project.
And git realizes it is a different project.
You should be able to cd into the package directory within the vendor folder (vendor/foo/bar) and configure your remote(s) there. You can then work within that project and git(1) will work there and not within the parent repository.
To have this work with composer(1) it is important that you configure composer to prefer the source install variant for that repository. This is the preferred-install option and you can configure it for your repository specifically.
{
"config": {
"preferred-install": {
"foo/bar": "source"
}
}
}
From the wording in your question, I assume that you have not yet configured it.
And this is somewhat important as only with the source install, there will be a (non-bare) git clone in vendor/foo/bar and therefore the git checkout with the overall git configuration within the packages folder in the vendor directory (as you have Github configured as the repository source and composer optimizes to take the dist version by default IIRC).
After you changed your configuration to the source install and updated it, cd into vendor/foo/bar and then run git remote -v. It now should show you the "composer" remote(s) for that package.
As you use the develop branch, you can add changes locally but mind the gap that you would also need to push them to the remote repository (Github) before you use composer again to update (at least) that foo/bar package - as while you use git for the development of the foo/bar package now, in your main project you use composer to manage the dependency.
This is the price you have on the payroll using Github instead of a configuration that is more near to the place of work, but at least locally, you can handle the package with "git in git".
This is normally straight forward. One overall price remains thought, due to managing two instead of one repository but that you can't prevent with this kind of composer project [composer only versioned vendor folder]).
Note: If development takes longer than a few hours, it may also make sense to include the new Git sub-project in the backup routine of your parenting project, so that when you remove the folder vendor/foo/bar you have a backup of the (local) Git repository and working tree in it. However, this depends on the project configuration and is your own responsibility.
A bit of a workflow with some hints is also outlined in the composer documentation in Loading a package from a VCS repository.
1 There is a type of setup for a composer project where vendor itself is under git version control, with that git sub-modules can work (very well), but this is most likely not the kind of setup you have for your project, so I skip it for this answer.
If you're working with sail or docker-compose and linking the foo/bar project in the vendor dir is only a temporary until 'it works' solution you could just add it as a volume link. This is what I usually do.
Eg: I'm working on my-project in ~/projects/my-project, I clone the foo/bar repo to ~/projects/bar
Then in the docker-compose.yml I can add the volume:
volumes:
- .:/var/www/html
- ../bar:/var/www/html/vendor/foo/bar
Again, this has a huge assumption on docker being used, but I like to think that everybody is using it these days.
Do I need to have a sub git in my project in vendor/foo with git remote add origin https://github.com/thisisme/bar.git.
That could be achieved with a submodule which allows for your parent Git repository to only store a reference to another repository.
You would use git submodule add for that.
A git clone --recurse-submodule would therefore clone your project with the submodule Git repository in it cloned as well, and checked out to the exact reference you previously committed.
I am trying to maintain my changes to config files of resource.bundle directories from remote cocoapods repositories.
While working on the implementation I am able to make changes locally but I do not own the external repository.I would like to be able to refer to the code owners tags implementing the pods from their repos in my project while maintaining my configuration changes.
It has been suggested to me to create a script phase in my build process that would copy files from a "assets folder" within the project to the finished pod directory after the remote pull and build.
This sounds feasible but I am not sure where to start in this process or what the script would like.
essentially I would have a
root/assetsfolder/resource.bundle
that would need to be copied to
Pods/ExternalPodName/Core/resource.bundle
Any help would be appreciated.
I am planning to do below
Copy from git repository to a Windows machine each time a commit/ update is made to that folder only. May be something like Jenkins can be used for same but unable to determine how can I do it?
Check commit made to repo ( this I have done)
As soon as commit is made to repo, trigger a jenkins job that will update this change to a windows server ( How to do this?)
If the repository is local, it would be easier to push directly to the Windows machine, assuming it has an SSH server (which Windows 10 2019.09 and more now have)
If the repository is distant, you can configure a webhook in order to call a Jenkins server for a specific job.
See for instance "Triggering a Jenkins build every time changes are pushed to a Git branch on GitHub" by David Luet
Or you can define a Jenkins pipeline that GitLab-CI can execute.
In both cases, your Jenkins job will have to copy the checked out repository.
I would use git bundle to compress the repository into one file (or a simple tar), copy it over the Windows server, and decompress there.
I want to build a project in Azure Pipelines, but I want to know what the idiomatic way is to obtain the latest tag, latest tag distance, and repo remote path/URL in order to pass those values into the actual build script that is inside the repository.
Previously our build script would invoke hg log -r . --template with a clever template, but we found when moving to Continua CI build server that the build agent doesn't have access to the actual repository during a build, and had to find another way.
I'm assuming the same issue would crop up with Azure Pipelines and haven't quite found the relevant docs yet on artifact versioning.
Many thanks in advance.
For git at least, Azure Pipelines does a full clone of the repo by default, unless you explicitly denote that you're doing a shallow clone (source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/repos/pipeline-options-for-git?view=azure-devops).
Deriving the version/tag can be done via normal git commands (i.e. git describe --tags or whatever you prefer), which can then be saved as VSO variables to be accessed in later steps in the same job (see https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/variables?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml%2Cbatch#set-variables-using-expressions for more info on how to do that).
I'm new to Git and Gitlab. I downloaded and installed Gitlab to my PC so I could have a private Git repository. I would like like to ask a few things regarding git-data in my private Gitlab setup (local only).
I was able to find my project name in the gitlab repository. It has some files/folders inside but I couldn't find the source code I pushed. I could see HEAD, INFO, etc. I was expecting to find my project folder which I pushed to this remote repository containing my source codes. Am I wrong to expect a copy of my project folder here with the source codes? Or is my pushed source code being stored in a compiled manner hence I couldn't find it?
Security-wise, can I assume that Gitlab doesn't send or push any of my code elsewhere in the Internet?