I am collaborating with my friend on an iOS app. We use different Apple IDs in our Xcodes, so in "Signing and Capabilities" tab of project settings, we select different teams in the "Team" field:
From my observation, changing this affects the MyProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj file, which stores the file references that the Xcode project has, in addition to the "Team". Here's a snippet of what is changed:
buildSettings = {
ASSETCATALOG_COMPILER_APPICON_NAME = AppIcon;
ASSETCATALOG_COMPILER_GLOBAL_ACCENT_COLOR_NAME = AccentColor;
CODE_SIGN_STYLE = Automatic;
DEVELOPMENT_TEAM = <my team ID>; /* this is changed */
INFOPLIST_FILE = MyProject/Info.plist;
LD_RUNPATH_SEARCH_PATHS = (
"$(inherited)",
"#executable_path/Frameworks",
);
PRODUCT_BUNDLE_IDENTIFIER = io.github.sweeper777.MyApp;
PRODUCT_NAME = "$(TARGET_NAME)";
SWIFT_VERSION = 5.0;
TARGETED_DEVICE_FAMILY = 1;
};
The problem arises, when one of us commits this file and the other person pulls. The "puller" will now have the "Team" set to something invalid. When this person then tries to run the app on a real device, there will be code signing errors for obvious reasons. To solve this, this person must tediously go through all the targets that we have, and set each "Team" to their own team.
How can we make it so that on each person's computer, the "Team" stays the same after pulling, but any other changes to MyProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj is applied?
Remarks:
Putting the entire MyProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj in .gitignore doesn't work, because that would ignore every other change to it. Adding a new file to the project, for example, also changes MyProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj, and we want to be able to pull that change.
Manually deselecting the lines that say "DEVELOPMENT_TEAM = ..." when committing is as tedious as reselecting the correct team every time, so that's not a solution.
I found this. Apparently, I can configure git to run sed before git checkout and git add. However, that answer seems ignore the line by deleting it completely. This means that my friend, when he pulls, would still have to reselect the correct team. What I want is the kind of "ignore" that simply stops tracking that line. That is, if there is a local version of that line, use that.
I am also aware that this all wouldn't be a problem if we are on the same team. But if I understand this correctly, I can't have multiple people on my team unless I have a Company account, and not only can I not afford that, I don't own a Company.
I don't use Xcode itself and do not know how to smuggle Git hooks and scripts past the Xcode interface, so you'll need more than just this answer. But you mention sed in comments, and given your proposed file format, that may well be the way to go:
buildSettings = {
ASSETCATALOG_COMPILER_APPICON_NAME = AppIcon;
ASSETCATALOG_COMPILER_GLOBAL_ACCENT_COLOR_NAME = AccentColor;
CODE_SIGN_STYLE = Automatic;
DEVELOPMENT_TEAM = <my team ID>; /* this is changed */
INFOPLIST_FILE = MyProject/Info.plist;
LD_RUNPATH_SEARCH_PATHS = (
"$(inherited)",
"#executable_path/Frameworks",
);
PRODUCT_BUNDLE_IDENTIFIER = io.github.sweeper777.MyApp;
PRODUCT_NAME = "$(TARGET_NAME)";
SWIFT_VERSION = 5.0;
TARGETED_DEVICE_FAMILY = 1;
};
Git has the ability to run what it calls clean and smudge filters. These can be used to run any arbitrary program you like, including sed, the "stream editor", which is particularly good at making single-line changes based on regular expression matches.
There is another method that may also work, and may "play better" with Xcode, or may play worse. I'll go over that too, after covering clean and smudge filters.
Before we dive into writing clean and smudge filters, and using them from Git—you'll need to know all of these details as you will have to write your own custom filters—we should start with a simple fact about Git commits: No part of any commit can ever be changed. Once you make a commit, the stuff that's inside the commit—the stored data in all of its files—is the way it is, forever. So these filters have to work within that system. Remember that, as it will help with understanding what we're doing.
How Git makes and stores objects
The files inside a commit are not files, exactly: they're not the same thing as files in your file system, at least. Instead, they are what Git calls objects, specifically blob objects. A blob object holds the file's data; other objects hold the file's name; and commit objects collect everything together to be used all at once. There's one more internal object type for annotated tags but we'll stop here as we're really only interested in the blob-object part.
When Git extracts a commit, it reads the internal blob objects and runs them through internal code to decompress and format them into regular files. This can include doing end-of-line hacking (turning LFs into CRLFs) if desired. Normally, all this happens entirely inside Git, and the end result is that Git writes out an ordinary everyday file for you to use. This ordinary file is what you will work on / with, in Xcode or any other editor and compiler system and so on. These ordinary files are in your working tree.
After you've extracted some commit, you'll do some work on it, by changing some or all of the files in your working tree, to achieve whatever result you wanted. This can include changing the buildSettings, editing Swift code, editing Objectionable-C Objective-C code, and so on. You might add all-new files to the working tree, some of which you never commit at all (you can help make sure this never happens by listing such files in .gitignore).
Eventually, though, you'd like to commit the updated code. To do so, you must run git add, or maybe have your IDE run git add for you (perhaps Xcode has clicky buttons to do this). This invokes code in Git that converts the working tree file(s) back to internal blob objects if and as needed.
Again, normally this is all handled entirely inside of Git. Git will read the working tree file, maybe do CRLF-to-LF-only changes, compress the text, search for duplicate objects, and do all the other complicated things necessary to prepare the file, so that it is ready to be committed. The resulting data need not match what's in your working tree at all: it just has to be something that, when Git later goes to extract the file, produces what you will need in your working tree.
Clean and smudge filters
This is where these clean and smudge filters come in. I said, above, that normally, Git does the extraction and insertion all on its own. For binary files, the only thing Git does here is apply lossless compression.1 For text files, Git can do CRLF/LF substitutions as well. But what if you'd like to do your own operations?
You can: Git will let you do whatever you want during the extract process with a smudge filter, and will let you do whatever you want during the compress process with a clean filter. The clean filter replaces the in-file data, using a stream-edit type process,2 and then Git does its CRLF hacking if any and compressing on the "cleaned" data. The smudge filter replaces the decompressed, post-CRLF-hacking data coming out of Git with the data that should go into the working tree.
Hence you can write, as your clean filter, a sed script of the form:
s/DEVELOPMENT_TEAM = .*;/DEVELOPMENT_TEAM = DEVTEAMTEMPLATE;/
With that as the entire sed script, what sed will do is edit the incoming data stream and replace any actual development team text with the word DEVTEAMTEMPLATE.
Your smudge filter has to work slightly harder: it must find the template line and adjust it so that it contains the correct team ID. Where will you get the correct team ID? That's up to you: perhaps you can store it in a file in your home directory, or in a file that you create in the working tree but never commit in Git. You'll have to write this one or two or however-many-liner sed and/or shell script yourself.
1There are multiple phases of compression; git add does just one, and git checkout undoes all—including reading from "pack" files—as needed. The deeper level of compression, using delta encoding techniques, is entirely invisible at the "object" level, so nobody ever really has to think about it.
2With the advent of Git-LFS, Git gained the ability to run long-lived filters. Before that, Git always used simple stream filtering. The stream filtering is easier to understand, but is less efficient for doing en-masse operations on many files. Here, we're only interested in one file per repository anyway, so there's no need to go into the fancier long-lived filter details.
Defining clean and smudge filters
The tricky part here, with Git, is that you must define the filters in one place—in $HOME/.gitconfig or .git/config, for instance—and then tell Git to invoke them from another place, using the .gitattributes file. This is described in the gitattributes documentation. This documentation is pretty thorough, so read it. You can ignore all the long-running filter discussion, as noted above. I will quote one bit from the documentation here for emphasis, though, and expound on it:
Note that "%f" is the name of the path that is being worked on. Depending on the version that is being filtered, the corresponding file on disk may not exist, or may have different contents. So, smudge and clean commands should not try to access the file on disk, but only act as filters on the content provided to them on standard input.
When Git is running the smudge filter, it:
has opened some internal object (which may or may not be packed);
has decompressed it, or is in the process of decompressing it, and pumped / is-pumping out the data; and
this data is being fed to your filter, but is not written out to any file anywhere.
Your filter can use %f to know the name of the target output file, but the data are not in that file yet. The data bytes are only in some OS-level pipes or sockets or whatever your OS uses for connecting the output of one program (Git's internal decompressors) to another (your filter). Your smudge filter must read its standard input to get the data, and write the smudged data to standard output so that Git can read it (if necessary) and/or redirect that output to the correct file. Do not attempt to open the file by name!
(The same holds for the clean filter, except that in many cases, the input to your filter is just the raw data already in the file, so that opening the file and reading it mostly works. So this can mislead you, if you do your tests using a clean filter.)
Note that you can implement this scheme without a clean filter at all: your smudge filter can replace whatever is in the committed file even if it's a real team ID, rather than just a template. If you choose to do this, however, you'll "see" the team ID changing every time a different team-ID commits the file. The nice thing about using the clean filter is that once the committed copies of the file use the template line, every future cleaned file also uses the template line, so that it never changes.
Alternative: a template file
In general, it's unwise to commit actual configurations. Clean and smudge tricks can work, but they can only go so far: this particular file format works well because the change you want made is on a single line, and Git itself shows you file changes on a line-by-line basis, and sed works well with line-oriented input, and so on.
A lot of configuration files, though, wind up storing at least slightly-sensitive data, or perhaps very-sensitive data such as cleartext passwords. Such files should not be stored in Git at all if at all possible. Instead, you would store a template file in Git.
In this case, for instance, instead of storing MyProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj, you might have Git store MyProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj.template. This file would have template-ized contents. When you clone and check out the repository, you'd subsequently copy the template file into place and do any required adjustments.
Should the MyProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj file itself need to change, e.g., to acquire a new SWIFT_VERSION setting, you'd instead edit the template file, add that to Git, and commit. You would then use the usual "convert template to mine" process, or manually update the MyProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj file. Since this file is never committed—and is listed in .gitignore—it never goes into any commit and you never have to worry about collisions within it. Only the template file goes into Git.
I am using CoreData and the xcdatamodeld editor with great happiness, but when I go to create NSManagedObject subclasses automatically for my entity types, the file placement options seem horribly inflexible.
I have to choose a single folder to place all new files
New files get re-added to the project at the top level (not in any logical groups)
I have my groups & folders set up to mirror each other, additionally I keep separate groups within my "models" folder for each NSManagedObject subclass (because CoreData creates 2 files for each and it just gets cluttered otherwise).
Problem 1 means that in this situation, I have to generate the files 1 at a time, choosing each subfolder manually. Problem 2 is just an added layer of convenience that I feel like should be avoidable.
It seems like it would be sensible for an option to "overwrite any such existing files in place, wherever they are located & whatever groups they may be in" -- so sensible, in fact, I may just be overlooking the command. Any thoughts?
No, you're not overlooking any command. Xcode has a different idea of how to organize things than you do. For problem 1, that's just how it is. Xcode won't attempt to locate existing files in your project when re-generating them. Maybe it should, but that's not how it's designed right now.
I am relatively new to using Github with XCode, and I recently merged two files. I saw there were conflicts in the .xcodeproj file. In the past I have fixed this simply by removing the <<<, ====, and >>> lines. In this case, I have done that, fixed the other files with conflicts, but I am still not able to open the Xcode project. I think perhaps I have left in some duplicate information in the xcodeproj file, but I have no idea how to figure out what's wrong. How do I troubleshoot this?
Earlier, when you did it successfully, it probably was because both changes were unique. Probably you added file A to the project in one branch, file B in the other one, merged and got a conflict(but you needed both these changes). With your current situation, the conflict is as simple (if you delete File A in both the branches, and add it back in one branch, your action will mess up the project file)
Do not just remove <<< === or >>> without understanding what is happening.
Look for the lines that should remain past merging. Easier for you, will be if you delete the chunk of lines between <<< & === or between === & >>> while keeping the other chunk as is.
It'd probably help you get a better answer if you post the entire code between <<< === >>>
I have a SharePoint 2010 solution in Visual Studio 2013. Every time I close and reopen Visual Studio, a new feature is added to the solution with one list inside it. The list was removed from another feature that it should be in. It is always the same list. As soon as I open the solution this pops up in the Output window before I do anything...
A new feature Feature2 has been added to the project Solution
C:\Code\Solution\Package\Package.package (0,0): Added Feature2 to Package
What is causing this?
I have tried the following:
Recreated the solution and copied all files over - No change
Checked the package and project manifest. - Everything looks okay.
Loaded the project every different way, including unload and reload command. - No change
Recreated the list it likes to isolate into its own feature - No change
Recreated the feature the list should be in but it keeps moving to this new feature - No change
Added a new list and put it after the problem list in the feature - VS then created 3 new features! It took 3 lists out of my feature and put one in each of its own features. I guess I made it angry.
If the lists in the same feature have the same Type ID, the tooling will move the lists into a newly created feature, because the Type must be unique within a feature. You can check the documentation on the ListTemplate element for more information.
It is because features cannot contain list templates that have identical values for Type. This is explained here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ms462947.aspx
Type
Optional Integer.
Provides a unique identifier for the template. This identifier must be unique within the feature, but need not be unique across all feature definitions or site definitions. For a list of the default list template types, see SPListTemplateType.
You will probably find that your Elements.xml file for your list templates contains the same value for Type.
To fix this, you will need to edit the Elements.xml files of the list template and the list instance.
Change the Type of the ListTemplate xml element to a unique integer.
Change the TemplateType of the ListInstance xml element to the same integer
I have started to choose numbers over 1000 to avoid conflicts (Although 1100, 1200, 1220 and 1221 are system types)
What is the best way to handle class renames (e.g. done with Resharper) with Git?
That is, if both the class name and containing file name are changed together and committed without further changes.
It seems the way Git handles renames via a percentage changed heuristic is a bit hit and miss.
For large classes it will be recognised as a rename but for small classes the percentage threshold is reached such that it will be seen as a delete and add.
Keep in mind that in Git's history, file renames are not stored as "this was renamed from X to Y". Instead, the file X exists in one revision, and in the next revision Y exists (and X doesn't). For example:
Revision | Files
---------+----------------------------------
HEAD^ | a.cpp x.cpp z.cpp
HEAD | a.cpp y.cpp z.cpp
In the above diagram, each revision is a row and each contains three files. Between the two revisions, x.cpp was renamed to y.cpp. The only information that the repository stores is the contents of each separate revision.
When Git (or another tool that reads Git repositories) looks at the above history, it notices that y.cpp is a new file in HEAD. Then it looks at the previous revision to see whether a similar file existed. In the case of a straight file rename, then yes, a file called x.cpp with the identical contents existed in the previous revision (and no longer exists in the current revision). So the new file is shown as a rename from x.cpp to y.cpp.
In the case of a rename-and-modify, Git will look at the previous revision's files to see if one file looks close to the new file (in terms of its contents). This is where the heuristic comes in. If most of the lines are the same, then Git will show it as a rename, but if there are enough changed lines compared to unchanged lines, then Git will simply say it looks like a new file.
To answer your question, the best way to handle resharper class renames is to simply do it and commit the new files. Git stores the old and the new files in its repository. Rename detection is handled later, at the time you actually ask about the history. This is why commands such as git log have options like --find-copies and --find-copies-harder.
Years later this is still a quirk I guess because it's fundamental to the way git works.
What I do now is do the rename, commit, then do the change. Bit annoying with refactoring tools but no other solution retains history (--find-copies and --find-copies-harder don't seem to work).