I have a project where there are files in a particular non-standard textual format. When these files are touched/modified, I want to run a certain custom compiler on them to generate XML, which is part of the output of the whole solution.
I'm considering creating a MSBuild task to do this. It will take as input the non-stadard file names and output the requisite XML files. The task will then be used in the other projects in the solution.
I want new developers on this project to have minimal setup. That means, I want to be able to take a clean copy of my solution directly from source control and have the build first build the custom task, then apply it as necessary to the other projects in the class.
I'm concerned that the build output of the project that builds the custom task needs to copy its output assembly to some known location so that the other projects can refer to it. What is the proper way of going about doing this?
You're about to walk into a mess here, because Visual Studio is going to lock the custom task Assembly when it's first used, thereby causing any further builds in Visual Studio (i.e. Build > Solution) to fail.
As #stijn commented, you should override the Build target and use another method of building the assembly with the custom task, e.g. using the Csc task or spawning another MSBuild.exe process (see answer to linked question).
The way I decided to go though was to create a separate solution, e.g. "Build Tools", containing the custom task assembly (among other tools), and required that it be built before anything else. I personally find the notion of checking-in prebuilt binaries of this source very unpalatable. If developers didn't want to build the Build Tools solution, they would copy the output from some nightly build.
Unfortunately there isn't an easy way of getting around "hardcoding" a known (relative) location. Using $(SolutionDir) usually works - just not if you try to run MSBuild on the project directly, instead of the solution (VS is a bit more intelligent when you open a project by itself).
I am using this extension (https://github.com/ceztko/SolutionConfigurationName) to put solution output all in one folder. It is working splendidly on our development machines. (I modified the source to support VS2012 installation)
We are now trying to run a build using devenv.com, but it seems that the macros are not being evaluated properly --or rather, they are an empty string ""
Does anyone know if devenv.com plays nice with extensions? Or maybe the workflow for a headless build is different such that the extension is not getting triggered? It uses UpdateSolution_Begin to update the variables.
tia
A headless build won't load that extension, and definitely won't go triggering solution events like that.
To be honest, this feels strongly like an XY problem. A solution build results in the MSBuild Configuration property being specified to each individual project, and I can't think of any scenario where you wouldn't simply be able to base a build customization on that property. For the Roslyn codebase itself we direct all OutDirs for all projects by simply having a single msbuild .targets file that defines the output path, and then we include that in all projects. Very clean, and doesn't require VS extensions to be installed, or even VS installed at all in order to do a build.
I have a build process (let's call it the "engine") that has been using a command line call to Visual Studio's devenv.exe to build a project. I have known for some time that VS is just building with MSBuild, so I finally got around to updating the engine to use MSBuild directly. However, I'm finding a strange anomaly with MSBuild.
For the sake of discussion, there's projects A, B, C, and D. Project A is the main project I'm building, a web app, that depends (through project references) on the other 3 projects. When built manually in VS, A\bin is populated with assemblies. When built in the engine with devenv.exe A\bin is again populated with the expected binaries. When built in the engine use MSBuild, A\bin contains nothing. However, B\Release\bin, C\Release\bin and D\Release\bin contain their binaries as they did using the former 2 build methods.
This happens with just a single project as well. The problem doesn't appear to be related to dependent projects.
I have attempted to explicitly set the MSBuild OutDir property, but it doesn't appear to have any affect.
I have run builds with diagnostic output on and can't see anything obvious (granted, there is a LOT there so it's possible I have yet to find something significant).
I've also been trying to figure out how to see the command line call to MSBuild that VS is making when run from devenv.exe but I can't seem to find it.
I have looked at several other SO posts (here and here) but they aren't the same problem.
Anyone have an idea of what this could be or where else I could look for an answer or more diagnostic information?
EDIT 1: The arguments pattern used for the call to MSBuild looks like this:
/nologo /target:Compile /property:Configuration=%%BUILDCONFIG%% /maxcpucount
/property:OutDir=%%OUTDIR%%\bin\ /verbosity:diag /detailedsummary "%%PROJPATH%%"
The lower half of that shows my attempt to force the output directory as well as the enhanced output to show more details of the process. Build engine code replaces with "%%TOKEN%%" items with the appropriate replacement values for the project being built.
EDIT 2: After more research and looking into suggested provided, I've decided to abandon the effort to use msbuild instead of devenv. It seems there is a lot more going on under the hood of devenv in preparation its own call to msbuild and I could likely break something else going on if I don't fully understand the entrance in msbuild. I did try to see if the call to msbuild from devenv is logged, but it doesn't seem to be. I've considered building a dummy msbuild app to just dump the command going into it and temporarily swap out the actual msbuild to generate this diagnostic information, but that's more effort than it's worth at this point. The performance gain isn't so great that it's worth pursuing further for now.
I would look at the Output path on the build tab of your project properties. There are more than few differences when using MSBuild and when using Visual Studio (Even from the command line). It could be you have A configured differently than B,C,D and synching A to the rest will make it work. Also, if you plan to build the projects individually, not as a solution make sure you don't use Solution Level macros that won't be available to the project file on it own.
You are supposed to set OutputPath instead of OutputDir.
Since you already used /verbosity:diag, why not redirect the output to a text file and carefully analyze where csc.exe (or another compiler in use) stores the binaries? That's quite simple and informative for you to learn how MSBuild works under the hood.
Our code uses different settings for development and production environments so we were looking at using VS2010's web.config transform capabilities. After hours of trial and error, nothing has worked. We found a Web.config transformation tester and found that what we had been trying was supposed to work (according to this tool.)
We tried testing the transformations using Build, not Publish. Does it only run on Publish or could something else be wrong?
Yes, it only runs on Publish. To test, publish to a local dir. You'll want to publish your application with the correct target environment set.
You can also integrates web config transformations with MS Build.
It seems you don't have to be in Publish mode to generate a transformed Web.config file. There's just a bit more work involved.
Open the Visual Studio Command Prompt and navigate to your working project directory that contains your .csproj file. Enter the following command:
MSBuild project.csproj /t:TransformWebConfig /p:Configuration=Debug
The example above would run the Debug transformation during the build of project.csproj. This will output a Web.config file into the obj\Debug\TransformWebConfig\transformed\ directory, where Debug is whatever Configuration you set in the command above.
Copy this file to replace your root Web.config file, and you're done. You could write a batch script to run both of those items automatically, but for larger projects with many configurations it could become unwieldy.
You might be able to add those command line arguments to the build process inside of Visual Studio, but I'm not sure how - as far as I know for this method to work you would have to build from the command line instead of inside Visual Studio. You can still use Clean inside of Visual Studio to clean out the obj folder but it will only clean the solution configuration mode selected in the IDE. Clean will not revert your edited web.config file, so you may want to back it up before proceeding if you need to.
(Command line arguments found from this MSDN article.)
You don't need run Publish/Build Package in order to test Web.config transformation. There is a cool trick to quickly know the transformation result here. Scroll down until you see a comment about creating TransformConfig project. It works like a charm, note that you can safely ignore 7th step (frankly I don't know how to do that step properly but fortunately we don't need it :)).
I know the ideal way to build projects is without requiring IDE based project files, since it theoretically causes all sort of trouble with automation and what not. But I've yet to work on a project that compiles on Windows that doesn't depend on the VisualStudio project (Ok, obviously some Open Source stuff gets done with Cygwin, but I'm being general here).
On the other hand if we just use VS to run a makefile, we loose all the benefits of the compile options window, and it becomes a pain to maintain the external makefile.
So how do people that use VS actually handle external makefiles? I have yet to find a painless system to do this...
Or in reality most people don't do this, although its preached as good practice?
Take a look at MSBuild!
MSBuild can work with the sln/csproj files from VS, so for simple projects you can just call them directly.
if you need more control, wrap the projects in your own build process, add your own tasks etc. - it is very extensible!
(I wanted to add a sample but this edior totally messed up the XML... sorry)
Ideally perhaps, in practice no.
Makefiles would be my preference as the build master, however, the developers spend all their time inside the visual studio IDE and when they make a change, it's to the vcproj file, not the makefile. So if I'm doing the global builds with makefiles, it's too easily put out of synch with the project/solution files in play by 8 or 10 others.
The only way I can stay in step with the whole team is to run devenv.exe on the solution files directly in my build process scripts.
There are very few makefiles in my builds, where there are they are in the pre-build or custom build sections or a separate utility project.
One possibility is to use CMake - you describe with a script how you project is to be built, and CMake generates the Visual Studio solution/project files for you.
And if you need to build your project from the command line, or in a continuous integration tool, you use CMake to generate a Makefile for NMake.
And if you project is a cross-platform one - you can run CMake to generate the makefiles for the toolchain of your choice.
A simple CMake script looks like this:
project(hello)
add_executable(hello hello.cpp)
Compare these two lines with a makefile or the way you setup a simple project in your favorite IDE.
In a nutshell CMake does not only cross-platform-enables your project it also makes it cross-IDE. If you like to just test your project with eclipse or KDevelop, or codeblocks, just run CMake to generate the corresponding project files.
Well, in practice it is no always so easy, but the CMake idea just rocks.
For example, if you consider using CMake with Visual Studio there is some tweaking required to obtain the familiar VS project feeling, main obstacle is to organize your header and source files, but it is possible - check the CMake wiki (and by writting a short script you might even simplify this task).
We use a NAnt script, which at the compile step calls MSBuild. Using NAnt allows us to perform both pre- and post-build tasks, such as setting version numbers to match source control revision numbers, collating code coverage information, assembling and zipping deployment sources. But still, at the heart of it, it's MSBuild that's actually doing the compiling.
You can integrate a NAnt build as a custom tool into the IDE, so that it can be used both on a build or continuous integration server and by the developers in the same way.
Personally, I use Rake to call msbuild on my solution or project. For regular development I use the IDE and all the benefits that provides.
Rake is set up so that I can just compile, compile and run tests or compile run tests and create deployable artifacts.
Once you have a build script it is really easy to start doing things like setting up continuous integration and using it to automate deployment.
You can also use most build tools from within the IDE if you follow these steps to set it up.
We use the devenv.exe (same exe that launches the IDE) to build our projects from the build scripts (or the command line). When specifying the /Build option the IDE is not displayed and everything is written back to the console (or the log file if you specify the /Out option)
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xee0c8y7(VS.80).aspx for more information
Example:
devenv.exe [solution-file-name] /Build [project-name] /Rebuild "Release|Win32" /Out solution.log
where "Release|Win32" is the configuration as defined in the solution and solution.log is the file that gets the compiler output (which is quite handy when you need to figure out what went wrong in the compile)
We have a program that parses the vcproj files and generates makefile fragments from that. (These include the list of files and the #defines, and there is some limited support for custom build steps.) These fragments are then included by a master makefile which does the usual GNU make stuff.
(This is all for one of the systems we target; its tools have no native support for Visual Studio.)
This didn't require a huge amount of work. A day to set it up, then maybe a day or two in total to beat out some problems that weren't obvious immediately. And it works fairly well: the compiler settings are controlled by the master makefile (no more fiddling with those tiny text boxes), and yet anybody can add new files and defines to the build in the usual way.
That said, the combinatorical problems inherent to Visual Studio's treatment of build configurations remain.
Why would you want to have project that "compiles on Windows that doesn't depend on the VisualStudio project"? You already have a solution file - you can just use it with console build.
I'd advise you to use msbuild with conjunction with makefile, nant or even simple batch file if your build system is not as convoluted as ours...
Is there something I'm missing?
How about this code?
public TRunner CleanOutput()
{
ScriptExecutionEnvironment.LogTaskStarted("Cleaning solution outputs");
solution.ForEachProject(
delegate (VSProjectInfo projectInfo)
{
string projectOutputPath = GetProjectOutputPath(projectInfo.ProjectName);
if (projectOutputPath == null)
return;
projectOutputPath = Path.Combine(projectInfo.ProjectDirectoryPath, projectOutputPath);
DeleteDirectory(projectOutputPath, false);
string projectObjPath = String.Format(
CultureInfo.InvariantCulture,
#"{0}\obj\{1}",
projectInfo.ProjectName,
buildConfiguration);
projectObjPath = Path.Combine(productRootDir, projectObjPath);
DeleteDirectory(projectObjPath, false);
});
ScriptExecutionEnvironment.LogTaskFinished();
return ReturnThisTRunner();
}
public TRunner CompileSolution()
{
ScriptExecutionEnvironment.LogTaskStarted ("Compiling the solution");
ProgramRunner
.AddArgument(MakePathFromRootDir(productId) + ".sln")
.AddArgument("/p:Configuration={0}", buildConfiguration)
.AddArgument("/p:Platform=Any CPU")
.AddArgument("/consoleloggerparameters:NoSummary")
.Run(#"C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\msbuild.exe");
ScriptExecutionEnvironment.LogTaskFinished ();
return ReturnThisTRunner ();
}
You can find the rest of it here: http://code.google.com/p/projectpilot/source/browse/trunk/Flubu/Builds/BuildRunner.cs
I haven't tried it myself yet, but Microsoft has a Make implementation called NMake which seems to have a Visual Studio integration:
NMake
Creating NMake Projects
Visual Studio since VS2005, uses "msbuild" to define and run builds. When you fiddle with project settings in the Visual Studio designer - let's say you turn XML doc generation on or off, or you add a new dependency, or you add a new project or Assembly reference - Visual Studio will update the .csproj (or .vbproj, etc) file, which is an msbuild file.
Like Java's ant or Nant before it, msbuild uses an XML schema to describe the project and build. It is run from VS when you do a "F6" build, and you can also run it from the command line, without ever opening VS or running devenv.exe.
So, use the VS tool for development and command-line msbuild for automated builds - same build, and same project structure.