I'm learning Visual Studio 2015 Community. I'm a seasoned programmer, but new to VS, and the file representation is confusing me. I've created a solution, and added an existing project. VS is showing me all project files (In my case a C++ project, so .c, .cpp, and .h files) on one tree level in Solution Explorer.
In contrast, if I open said project in something like Sublime Text, VS Code, notepad++, or the like, I see the proper directory structure as it sits on the disk drive; as one would see it in File Explorer/Finder or ls/dir in a terminal.
I have done my homework before I posted, and in the following thread, #Andrey states:
I am afraid there is no such concept in MSVS like "directory
structure". Moreover, MSVS doesn't really need it because it uses flat
projects and hierarchies are based on project level, not on the
file/directory level.
As there is no such thing - you can't have it neither automatically
nor manually. MSVS has solution folders which is quite different thing
and there isn't much sense in expressing real folders as solution
folders.
Visual Studio as Code Browser : How to preserve the directory structure?
Is this true? There is much meaning in the arrangement of files, and the flat representation in VS makes a project harder to understand; file location in the directory structure are important. Is there a way to view the proper directory structure in VS?
In my situation, I'm working with Quickfix, which supports multiple versions (4.0, 4.1, 4.2, etc.). Each of these have different classes and files with the same name.
As you can see from the screen shots below, they are all neatly arranged in different folders on disk, but VS's representation of these files is immensely confusing:
I found the answer given by #Paul Easter in the thread below to very helpful in understanding this "quirk," which is really a "feature." A different concept of project structure is at work:
But as for the reason you do not want solution folders to behave like
"physical" folders is because your solution layout may not necessarily
use the same convention as your source control layout. Solution
folders allow you to customize the hierarchy of your projects so that
you can group projects and items together any way you like, and then
decide you don't like it and change it again without having to go
through the nightmare of moving source control items around and
irritating the rest of your team.
Visual Studio Solutions Folder as real Folders
Is this a good idea? I can see where some people would like it, as it allows them to arrange project files as they wish. At this point, I dislike it; I'm sure in part because it is new to me, but also for these two reasons:
1. In an organized project, the directory hierarchy is not arbitrary; the Principal Engineer arranges files in a certain way for good reasons.
2. It adds a layer of abstraction between the VS file representation and the operating system structure. I like direct access to the files that I'm working on; with the VS system, I feel oddly and eerily disconnected from the underlying files in VS. I must admit a fear that this layer has its anomalies, and will cause problems for me.
Related
I have to figure out what needs to be done to make a very old/shelved/unfinished C# asp.net code base into a working application if it's even possible.
I was pointed to the source where there's just a few things in the root, the important one seems to be this data folder.
It contains a whole bunch of folders mostly titled a, b, c, etc. And those contain files called something like baaaaaa or baaaaaaa.b. I can open some of these up in notepad and see plane old C# source code but it's basically meaningless in this organization.
I've never used SourceSafe, but from googling I guess this is how SourceSafe stored files and their changes or something?
If I have what I've described but no traditional solutions or source is it possible to get the original organized solution with properly name classes and such? Can I even use this? If so, how?
You are looking at a SourceSafe library. You need to:
Get VSS (Visual Source Safe, v6.0d is still available) on your client.
Point it to that root directory as a VSS library.
Then you should see the projects tree and be able to extract everything.
In most .NET project I can use folder to organise the code files. In C++, I can't, but filters end up playing the same role. However, in F# with Visual Studio 2010, I can't. Every code file is shown directly in the project dir. Why is this feature not available?
And what is the optimal strategy for organizing a project with a lot of files?
Actually, you can add folders to F# projects but it's not supported directly through Visual Studio (you have to edit the project file yourself): http://fsprojectextender.codeplex.com/ (edit: old link was broken, updated to F# Project Extender home page which has links to the original blog posts which were moved) (which I found in this answer).
I do this myself, but it is cumbersome and you end up avoiding it until keeping sanity really demands it. I think the feature simply slipped, or perhaps there wasn't as much a culture for folder organization with the F# designers in the first place. You can see in the F# source code that they favor huge source files with no directories, with separate projects as an organization boundary.
I imagine the F# project template could be modified to support this, and it is certainly something I'd like to see happen. At the same time the linear compilation order F# enforces causes your code to be somewhat self-organized, and so folder grouping plays a less significant role.
Manually editing the .fsproj file as described in Stephen's answer is one option (and I used it when I wanted to organize one larger project).
However, you have to be a bit careful and I think you cannot add new files to the folders (creating a file by hand and then adding an existing file works). However, if you like to keep things organized (like I do), then it should work for you.
Additionally, there is also a tool called F# Project Extender that should make things a bit easier for you . I have not tried it yet, but it looks like it supports adding folders (and perhaps other useful things). See for example this blog post by the project author.
Being new to VS, how may I think of these two concepts, what is the difference?
I find some missing information in the other answers (at least for people who come from other IDEs like, say, Eclipse) . To say that a solution is a container for projects is only part of the thing. The conceptual feature of a VS project (what determines its 'granularity') is that one project produces one output: typically an executable or a library (dll). So, if you are going to code three executables that uses related code, you'll create one solution and at least three projects - probably more.
A solution is a container for projects, and tracks dependencies between projects.
Just to come up with a metaphor..
A solution is like a house, a project like a room. Each room provides a piece of functionality whereas the house, a container of rooms, provides the means to link the rooms together and organize them appropriately.
Kind of corny but I made it up on the fly, so bear with me :)
It doesn't help that Visual Studio seems to make things more confusing. "New Project" actually creates a new SOLUTION containing a project. "Open Project" actually opens a solution containing one (or many) project. (The file menu says "Open Project/Solution" but it really is opening solutions. There is no "Close Project" only "Close Solution" which is accurate.
So, in VS you are always working within a solution. Many solutions contain only one project and newer developers are likely to think of them as the same thing. However you can add other projects into a solution.
In case anyone decides to scroll down this far... I thought the MS docs did a pretty good job at describing the differences. I've copy pasted (and rephrased) the relevant bits here:
When you create an app, application, website, Web App, script, plug-in, etc in Visual Studio, you start with a project. In a logical sense, a project contains of all the source code files, icons, images, data files and anything else that will be compiled into an executable program or web site, or else is needed in order to perform the compilation. A project also contains all the compiler settings and other configuration files that might be needed by various services or components that your program will communicate with.
You don't have to use solutions or projects if you don't want to. You can simply open the files in Visual Studio and start editing your code.
In a literal sense, a project is an XML file (.vbproj, .csproj, .vcxproj) that defines a virtual folder hierarchy along with paths to all the items it "contains" and all the build settings.
In Visual Studio, the project file is used by Solution Explorer to display the project contents and settings. When you compile your project, the MSBuild engine consumes the project file to create the executable. You can also customize projects to product other kinds of output.
A project is contained, in a logical sense and in the file system, within a solution, which may contain one or more projects, along with build information, Visual Studio window settings, and any miscellaneous files that aren't associated with any project. In a literal sense, the solution is a text file with its own unique format; it is generally not intended to be edited by hand.
A solution has an associated .suo file that stores settings, preferences and configuration information for each user that has worked on the project.
A Solution can have many Projects.
The Solution can also handle managing the dependencies between its different Projects...making sure that each Project gets Built in the appropriate order for the final Solution to work.
A project contains executable and library files that make up an application or component of an application.
A solution is a placeholder for logically related projects that make up an application. For example, you could have separate projects for your application's GUI, database access layer, and so on. The projects would be specific divisions for your program's functionality, and the solution would be the umbrella unifying all of them under one application.
A solution is a readable text file whose extension is .sln and having a structured content that describes the projects that it contains. A project is a readable XML formatted text file whose extension is .vcxproj and having a structured content according to its XML schema, and whose primary purpose is to contain the listing of source codes filenames and their dependencies or references to other project's source codes as well.
Solutions are containers for projects - you can also use them to organize items that are used across different related project (shared dll's and such).
Solutions are containers used by Visual Studio to organize one or more related projects. When you open a solution in Visual Studio, it will automatically load all the projects it contains.
When you create a new project in Visual Studio, it automatically creates a solution to house the project if there's not a solution already open.
You can set dependencies of projects on other projects in the solution. The dependent project is build after the project it is depending on is built.
For more details refer - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/quickstart-projects-solutions
If you are from an Eclipse background you would probably go to build path of a project and add a dependency on other project or add an external jar. In VS you can do that in a single container called solution where all related projects are grouped together.
Eg. Let's say you are build and android and iOS app in xamrin, there would be some common code and resources that could go in a separate project and then your android and iOS projects can depend on this common code project. Also you could have projects to test these projects etc.
Is there a way to use add-as-link when dragging and dropping source files or entire source trees into a C# project?
Currently, dragging a tree of source files onto a C# project will cause Visual Studio to copy all files to mirror tree below my solution file.
This can be avoided with the the add-as-link option as depicted in the picture below. However, it gets tedious for large trees or when some files in a directory are already part of the project.
Screenshot of the add-as-link functionality in Visual Studio http://jaapsuter.com/images/add_cs_file.jpg
I've looked in Tools->Options, searched the web, and held various magic key combinations when dragging and dropping, to no avail.
I'm tempted to write a script that just globs my .cs files and runs a regular expression over my .csproj file. I'm aware of NAnt, Premake, and other solutions - but I'd like something lightweight.
Although this question has been answered, I thought I'd provide another way, because I found this question while figuring out if it was possible to add linked files in Visual Studio using drag-drop, rather than the cumbersome Add Items dialog box. And while the answer here wasn't what I was looking for, I found out myself:
Holding down CTRL+SHIFT down while drag-dropping, will create linked files. Additionally holding down only CTRL will create copies, but not remove the source file.
What you can also do if you don't find a solution is bind a directory to your project by hand once and let the project find all .cs files in that directory automatically when it loads.
This is easily done by changing your MSBuild file in the following way:
<ItemGroup>
<Compile Include="SomeDirectory\**\*.cs"/>
</ItemGroup>
This will take all .cs files in SomeDirectory and include them to the project. This is very useful if there are often a lot of files added to the project. However, it may break on some machine adding useless files. That's why I would only recommend that on an external project that's not editable in your current workspace.
Probably not what you're asking for, but once I had two .NET applications which I wanted to share a lot of source files and so I placed both Visual Studio solutions in the same directory! It actually works, although I guess that a lot can be said about this approach...
Otherwise the most beautiful way to share code is by placing the shared code in a separate assembly, although this requires quite a bit of extra work if it is not written like that in the first place.
UPDATE:
This is one of my most-visited questions, and yet I still haven't really found a satisfactory solution for my project. One idea I read in an answer to another question is to create a tool which can build solutions 'on the fly' for projects that you pick from a list. I have yet to try that though.
How do you structure a very large application?
Multiple smallish projects/assemblies in one big solution?
A few big projects?
One solution per project?
And how do you manage dependencies in the case where you don't have one solution.
Note: I'm looking for advice based on experience, not answers you found on Google (I can do that myself).
I'm currently working on an application which has upward of 80 dlls, each in its own solution. Managing the dependencies is almost a full time job. There is a custom in-house 'source control' with added functionality for copying dependency dlls all over the place. Seems like a sub-optimum solution to me, but is there a better way? Working on a solution with 80 projects would be pretty rough in practice, I fear.
(Context: winforms, not web)
EDIT: (If you think this is a different question, leave me a comment)
It seems to me that there are interdependencies between:
Project/Solution structure for an application
Folder/File structure
Branch structure for source control (if you use branching)
But I have great difficulty separating these out to consider them individually, if that is even possible.
I have asked another related question here.
Source Control
We have 20 or 30 projects being built into 4 or 5 discrete solutions. We are using Subversion for SCM.
1) We have one tree in SVN containing all the projects organised logically by namespace and project name. There is a .sln at the root that will build them all, but that is not a requirement.
2) For each actual solution we have a new trunks folder in SVN with SVN:External references to all the required projects so that they get updated from their locations under the main tree.
3) In each solution is the .sln file plus a few other required files, plus any code that is unique to that solution and not shared across solutions.
Having many smaller projects is a bit of a pain at times (for example the TortoiseSVN update messages get messy with all those external links) but does have the huge advantage that dependancies are not allowed to be circular, so our UI projects depend on the BO projects but the BO projects cannot reference the UI (and nor should they!).
Architecture
We have completely switched over to using MS SCSF and CAB enterprise pattern to manage the way our various projects combine and interact in a Win Forms interface. I am unsure if you have the same problems (multiple modules need to share space in a common forms environment) but if you do then this may well bring some sanity and convention to how you architect and assemble your solutions.
I mention that because SCSF tends to merge BO and UI type functions into the same module, whereas previously we maintained a strict 3 level policy:
FW - Framework code. Code whose function relates to software concerns.
BO - Business Objects. Code whose function relates to problem domain concerns.
UI - Code which relates to the UI.
In that scenario dependancies are strictly UI -> BO -> FW
We have found that we can maintain that structure even while using SCSF generated modules so all is good in the world :-)
To manage dependencies, whatever the number of assemblies/namespaces/projects you have, you can have a glance at the tool NDepend.
Personnaly, I foster few large projects, within one or several solutions if needed. I wrote about my motivations to do so here: Benefit from the C# and VB.NET compilers perf
I think it's quite important that you have a solution that contains all your 80 projects, even if most developers use other solutions most of the time. In my experience, I tend to work with one large solution, but to avoid the pain of rebuilding all the projects each time I hit F5, I go to Solution Explorer, right-click on the projects I'm not interested in right now, and do "Unload Project". That way, the project stays in the solution but it doesn't cost me anything.
Having said that, 80 is a large number. Depending on how well those 80 break down into dicrete subsystems, I might also create other solution files that each contain a meaningful subset. That would save me the effort of lots of right-click/Unload operations. Nevertheless, the fact that you'd have one big solution means there's always a definitive view of their inter-dependencies.
In all the source control systems that I've worked with, their VS integration chooses to put the .sln file in source control, and many don't work properly unless that .sln file is in source control. I find that intriguing, since the .sln file used to be considered a personal thing, rather than a project-wide thing. I think the only kind of .sln file that definitely merits source control is the "one-big-solution" that contains all projects. You can use it for automated builds, for example. As I said, individuals might create their own solutions for convenience, and I'm not against those going into source control, but they're more meaningful to individuals than to the project.
I think the best solution is to break it in to smaller solutions. At the company I currently work for, we have the same problem; 80 projects++ in on solution. What we have done, is to split into several smaller solutions with projects belonging together. Dependent dll's from other projects are built and linked in to the project and checked in to the source control system together with the project. It uses more disk space, but disk is cheap. Doing it this way, we can stay with version 1 of a project until upgrading to version 1.5 is absolutely necessary. You still have the job with adding dll's when deciding to upgrade to a other version of the dll though. There is a project on google code called TreeFrog that shows how to structure the solution and development tree. It doesn't contain mush documentation yet, but I guess you can get a idea of how to do it by looking at the structure.
A method that i've seen work well is having one big solution which contains all the projects, for allowing a project wide build to be tested (No one really used this to build on though as it was too big.), and then having smaller projects for developers to use which had various related projects grouped together.
These did have depencies on other projects but, unless the interfaces changed, or they needed to update the version of the dll they were using, they could continue to use the smaller projects without worrying about everything else.
Thus they could check-in projects while they were working on them, and then pin them (after changing the version number), when other users should start using them.
Finally once or twice a week or even more frequently the entire solution was rebuild using pinned code only, thus checking if the integration was working correctly, and giving testers a good build to test against.
We often found that huge sections of code didn't change frequently, so it was pointless loading it all the time. (When you're working on the smaller projects.)
Another advantage of using this approach is in certain cases we had pieces of functionality which took months to complete, by using the above approach meant this could continue without interrupting other streams of work.
I guess one key criteria for this is not having lots of cross dependencies all over your solutions, if you do, this approach might not be appropriate, if however the dependencies are more limited, then this might be the way to go.
For a couple of systems I've worked on we had different solutions for different components. Each solution had a common Output folder (with Debug and Release sub-folders)
We used project references within a solution and file references between them. Each project used Reference Paths to locate the assemblies from other solutions. We had to manually edit the .csproj.user files to add a $(Configuration) msbuild variable to the reference paths as VS insists on validating the path.
For builds outside of VS I've written msbuild scripts that recursively identify project dependencies, fetch them from subversion and build them.
I gave up on project references (although your macros sound wonderful) for the following reasons:
It wasn't easy to switch between different solutions where sometimes dependency projects existed and sometimes didn't.
Needed to be able to open the project by itself and build it, and deploy it independently from other projects. If built with project references, this sometimes caused issues with deployment, because a project reference caused it to look for a specific version or higher, or something like that. It limited the mix and match ability to swap in and out different versions of dependencies.
Also, I had projects pointing to different .NET Framework versions, and so a true project reference wasn't always happening anyways.
(FYI, everything I have done is for VB.NET, so not sure if any subtle difference in behavior for C#)
So, I:
I build against any project that is open in the solution, and those that aren't, from a global folder, like C:\GlobalAssemblies
My continuous integration server keeps this up to date on a network share, and I have a batch file to sync anything new to my local folder.
I have another local folder like C:\GlobalAssembliesDebug where each project has a post build step that copies its bin folder's contents to this debug folder, only when in DEBUG mode.
Each project has these two global folders added to their reference paths. (First the C:\GlobalAssembliesDebug, and then C:\GlobalAssemblies). I have to manually add this reference paths to the .vbproj files, because Visual Studio's UI addes them to the .vbprojuser file instead.
I have a pre-build step that, if in RELEASE mode, deletes the contents from C:\GlobalAssembliesDebug.
In any project that is the host project, if there are non dlls that I need to copy (text files outputted to other project's bin folders that I need), then I put a prebuild step on that project to copy them into the host project.
I have to manually specify the project dependencies in the solution properties, to get them to build in the correct order.
So, what this does is:
Allows me to use projects in any solution without messing around with project references.
Visual Studio still lets me step into dependency projects that are open in the solution.
In DEBUG mode, it builds against open loaded projects. So, first it looks to the C:\GlobalAssembliesDebug, then if not there, to C:\GlobalAssemblies
In RELEASE mode, since it deletes everything from C:\GlobalAssembliesDebug, it only looks to C:\GlobalAssemblies. The reason I want this is so that released builds aren't built against anything that was temporarily changed in my solution.
It is easy to load and unload projects without much effort.
Of course, it isn't perfect. The debugging experience is not as nice as a project reference. (Can't do things like "go to definition" and have it work right), and some other little quirky things.
Anyways, that's where I am on my attempt to make things work for the best for us.
We have one gigantic solution on the source control, on the main branch.
But, every developer/team working on the smaller part of the project, has its own branch which contains one solution with only few projects which are needed. In that way, that solution is small enough to be easily maintenaced, and do not influence on the other projects/dlls in the larger solution.
However, there is one condition for this: there shouldn't be too much interconnected projects within solution.
OK, having digested this information, and also answers to this question about project references, I'm currently working with this configuration, which seems to 'work for me':
One big solution, containing the application project and all the dependency assembly projects
I've kept all project references, with some extra tweaking of manual dependencies (right click on project) for some dynamically instantiated assemblies.
I've got three Solution folders (_Working, Synchronised and Xternal) - given that my source control isn't integrated with VS (sob), this allows me to quickly drag and drop projects between _Working and Synchronised so I don't lose track of changes. The XTernal folder is for assemblies that 'belong' to colleagues.
I've created myself a 'WorkingSetOnly' configuration (last option in Debug/Release drop-down), which allows me to limit the projects which are rebuilt on F5/F6.
As far as disk is concerned, I have all my projects folders in just one of a few folders (so just one level of categorisation above projects)
All projects build (dll, pdb & xml) to the same output folder, and have the same folder as a reference path. (And all references are set to Don't copy) - this leaves me the choice of dropping a project from my solution and easily switching to file reference (I've got a macro for that).
At the same level as my 'Projects' folder, I have a 'Solutions' folder, where I maintain individual solutions for some assemblies - together with Test code (for example) and documentation/design etc specific to the assembly.
This configuration seems to be working ok for me at the moment, but the big test will be trying to sell it to my colleagues, and seeing if it will fly as a team setup.
Currently unresolved drawbacks:
I still have a problem with the individual assembly solutions, as I don't always want to include all the dependent projects. This creates a conflict with the 'master' solution. I've worked around this with (again) a macro which converts broken project references to file references, and restores file references to project references if the project is added back.
There's unfortunately no way (that I've found so far) of linking Build Configuration to Solution Folders - it would be useful to be able to say 'build everything in this folder' - as it stands, I have to update this by hand (painful, and easy to forget). (You can right click on a Solution Folder to build, but that doesn't handle the F5 scenario)
There is a (minor) bug in the Solution folder implementation which means that when you re-open a solution, the projects are shown in the order they were added, and not in alphabetical order. (I've opened a bug with MS, apparently now corrected, but I guess for VS2010)
I had to uninstall the CodeRushXPress add-in, because it was choking on all that code, but this was before having modified the build config, so I'm going to give it another try.
Summary - things I didn't know before asking this question which have proved useful:
Use of solution folders to organise solutions without messing with disk
Creation of build configurations to exclude some projects
Being able to manually define dependencies between projects, even if they are using file references
This is my most popular question, so I hope this answer helps readers. I'm still very interested in further feedback from other users.