Coming from a Unix background and used to working with the Makefileto build stuff, I now have to find my way through the maze of twisty little passages known as Visual Studio 2017.
Basically: I just want to save a solution that I've imported into Visual Studio 2017 (e.g. to move it to another machine) to some sensible structure. I am unable to figure out how to do that!
The solution I work with comes from GitHub and the package is about 590 Kbyte and consists of 32 files. (I downloaded the .zip and unpacked it, then opened in the IDE by clicking on the .sln-file.
After running it (unchanged) in Visual Studio, it has ballooned to 4 Mbyte and 134 files. Obviously a lot of temporary files has been created as a result of me running it. Making a copy of this bloated directory structure is not practical - and some other way (i.e. the method for saving used by the guy who shared his solution on GitHub) must exist.
I want to save it with all those temporary files removed.
There is Build » Clean Solution – but it does not seem to get get rid of the temporary files.
I've also tried: File » Save all. I do no understand how this commend is supposed to work. It does not ask where to save tings, but just says "Item(s) saved" at the status bar at the bottom of the screen. Looking at things in the file system, I am unable to located anything saved. To me, it looks like this command does nothing.
I've searched, but so far found nothing for Visual Studio 2017 (recipes for older versions does not seem to work anymore.)
Saving a solution is something developers do a lot, so there must be something obvious I've missed.
There is not really the concept of "Save As..." for a solution. If you want to copy the whole solution elsewhere you would usually just copy the whole folder it's in to somewhere else.
The reasons you have many extra files are:
There will be a .git sub-folder which contains the Git repository. If you don't need to retain any link to this, you can delete / avoid copying this. Depending on how much history is in the Git repo this folder can even be much larger than the solution itself.
VS will create a .vs sub-folder for various housekeeping activities; you can usually avoid copying this.
In each project's folder, after you've built the solution, there will be obj and bin sub-folders. These are recreated as needed at build time and are not needed for a copy.
If you copy everything ignoring the above, you will probably find the size of the target is more as you were expecting.
In the main project of my VS Solution I have a Resources folder with some required external tools. When building and publishing the solution, I get a .\Resources* with all required files there.
So far so good.
However I have to move some files to the parent directory.
My first attempt was do so with the Post Build Events. It works and does move them the correct folder.
Nevertheless in the publish output they still appear in the Resources folder and I need them in the parent one :/
Is there any way to setup the target output path for resources in Visual Studio?
After some research and experimental, I solved my problem.
Still, here's what I learned in the process.
The first attempt was adding the file to the project root and mark it as a resource. After publishing it worked. But having those files in the project root its lame.
Since I needed some *.exe files compiled in another VS solution, added them as a project reference. Gave it a try and it passed the "Publish" test. But still.. not the best way to do it.
After that, with some scripting and a post-build event, I copied the required files to the correct folder. Works.. but after publishing, they don't appear in the package.
However, there is still a possibility with the Mage tool:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/acz3y3te.aspx
This lead to some promissing experiments, however they ended up helping me realize how limited the MS ClickOnce is, so I decided to try other tools.
Here's a good start to follow:
What alternatives are there to ClickOnce?
I had a similar situation once. I found it became more trouble than it was worth to customize output paths and such in Visual Studio, to the extent that I wanted.
I ended up letting Visual Studio do its own thing with regards to file/project structure, and wrote a post-build script to copy everything that was needed into a final, 'publish-ready' directory.
I then set the execution target in Visual Studio to the new location, so I could run/debug as normal, but with the new folder that was organized how I needed it. Careful, I think this is a user project setting; so other developers will need to do this on their machines too, if they so desire.
I do recall changing some output paths and such to make the post-build script more simple. But changing things like that can lead to annoyances when you add new projects to the solution; you might need to configure them to match. It's all a trade-off :)
Two ideas:
Maybe you could move your resources into another project - a project just for resources - and then set their Build Action to Content and Copy To Output to true. Then reference this new project and build the solution. (This may not work as you want, just an idea).
Why not make your resources embedded resources instead. Keep them all within the Resources\ directory and access them programatically?
I've got a relatively simple project that is under source control (svn), and I wanted to create an installer. I know that I could (should) use WiX, but as I'm new to creating installers I thought it'd be easier to just use the built-in Visual Studio (2010) Setup and Deployment Wizard.
Unfortunately, it seems that files including external (non-project maintained) documentation, configuration files, and "Content" files are added with absolute paths. This, of course, is suboptimal. I searched the web, but found only the same question, without an answer. Another stackoverflow user seems to have asked a similar question, but the only answer, which suggests ClickOnce, seems off-base (I'd like to have an MSI that I distribute not a web-based installation).
Does anyone know how (or whether) this can be fixed?
With VS2005, sometimes the paths stored in the vdproj file were absolutes, and sometimes relatives. In my case, it seemed to be related to whether the files were accessed via the canonical path or not. Here's a concrete example:
Source is on C:\Views\builddir, open solution C:\Views\builddir\solution.sln and add files from C:\Views\builddir\.. and VS2005 would add relative paths into the vdproj file. However, if you map that builddir to a letter drive, for example, make a subst from C:\Views\builddir to s:, open the solution via S:\solution.sln, and then add files by navigating to S:\.., VS2005 would insert absolute paths into the vdproj files. Whether VS2005 displayed paths as absolutes or relatives had no relation to what it stored in the vdproj files.
So, it may well be that the problem comes down to what path you're using to open that solution.. opening \\server\shareddir\solution.sln might get different behavior than mapping \\server\shareddir to W: and opening w:\solution.sln.
You can always add the files, then use a text editor (e.g. notepad) to change the absolute paths in the vdproj file to relative ones. You'll be fine until you change that project again.
MS doesn't seem to really fix minor bugs like this so much as rewrite the code to introduce an entirely different set of bugs, so VS2010 might still act this way.
FYI, why would one want to map an absolute path to your builddir? It was a holdover from the bad old days when VS didn't do anything correct with relative paths.
As tzerb mentioned, the main source of confusion might be that paths show up as absolute under the property window inside VS, but when you look into the actual VDPROJ file you should see the paths show up as relative. However, as patbob mentioned, I believe the paths ARE stored as absolute when they come from a different letter drive.
It might be easier now but when you start bumping into the limitations of the tool it's going to get real hard. Let's not even talk about the bad practices it will encourage which could end up being real hard for the poor end user installing your product. You've got Visual Studio 2010 so InstallShield LE ( free ) would be a better choice.
Otherwise, to answer your question, it will only use absolute paths if it can't caculate a relative path. ( for example c:\foo\foo.vdproj consuming d:\foo.txt consuming c:\test\foo.txt should automatically be ....\test\foo.txt )
BTW, if you decide to check out WiX and want some "easy" check out my IsWiX project on CodePlex. I'm trying to bridge the feature gap between InstallShield and WiX.
When I right-click my solution in the Solution Explorer and choose Properties I get a dialog where I can select the Startup Project.
I sometimes select Current selection (If it is an experimental solution with lots of projects I jump between), but most often it is a Single startup project selected, which would usually be the main WinForms applications or or Console application.
My problem is that whenever I do a treeclean with the tfpt command (Team Foundation Power Tools 2008) this setting is forgotten. So when I try to run my solution the next time, it has defaulted to some random project and I get an error stating that I cannot run a class library or something like that. Which is obvious of course. But where is this setting stored? Why is it forgotten when I do the treeclean? The solution file is still there, right? Isn't solution properties stored there?
Reference 1
Arian Kulp says:
I was struggling with trying to figure
out why a certain solution of mine
wasn’t starting right. It was in VB
with four projects. Upon initial open
it would set a certain project with a
DLL output as startup. If I set the
EXE as startup project, it was fine,
but when I distribute code I always
clean it by removing *.suo and *.user
files, and bin/obj folders. Upon
opening the “cleaned” version, it
would always revert to the DLL project
and fail to F5 nicely. The fix turned
out to be simple, though I’m curious
as to why I needed to do this at all.
In the solution file, there are a list
of pseudo-XML “Project” entries. It
turns out that whatever is the first
one ends up as the Startup Project,
unless it’s overridden in the suo
file. Argh. I just rearranged the
order in the file and it’s good.
I’m guessing that C# is the same way
but I didn’t test it. I hope that
this helps someone!
Reference 2
Setting the StartUp Project
Which project is the "startup" project only has any relevance for debugging, which means it's user metadata from the point of the solution and the projects. Regardless of which project is the "startup" project, the compiled code is the same.
Because of this, the information is stored as a user setting in the Solution User Options file (solution.suo) which accompanies the Solution file (solution.sln). The .suo file "Records all of the options that you might associate with your solution so that each time you open it, it includes customizations that you have made" according to MSDN.
The .suo file is a binary file. If you want to read or change it programatically, you have to use IVsPersistSolutionOpts.LoadUserOptions from the Microsoft.VisualStudio.Shell.Interop namespace.
I suspect that this setting is saved as part of the .suo file created whenever you edit a solution file. This file contains various user settings, such as breakpoints, watch data etc.
I cannot confirm this but that would be my guess.
Unfortunately its not XML its a binary file and not easily edited.
I just wrote a little command line utility for windows called slnStartupProject to solve this. It sets the Startup Project automatically like this:
slnStartupProject slnFilename projectName
I personally use it to set the project after generating the solution with cmake that always sets a dummy ALL_BUILD project as the first project in the solution.
The source is on github:
https://github.com/michaKFromParis/slnStartupProject
Forks and feedbacks are welcome.
Hope this helps!
Visual Studio solutions contain two types of hidden user files. One is the solution .suo file which is a binary file. The other is the project .user file which is a text file. Exactly what data do these files contain?
I've also been wondering whether I should add these files to source control (Subversion in my case). If I don't add these files and another developer checks out the solution, will Visual Studio automatically create new user files?
These files contain user preference configurations that are in general specific to your machine, so it's better not to put it in SCM. Also, VS will change it almost every time you execute it, so it will always be marked by the SCM as 'changed'.
I don't include either, I'm in a project using VS for 2 years and had no problems doing that. The only minor annoyance is that the debug parameters (execution path, deployment target, etc.) are stored in one of those files (don't know which), so if you have a standard for them you won't be able to 'publish' it via SCM for other developers to have the entire development environment 'ready to use'.
You don't need to add these -- they contain per-user settings, and other developers won't want your copy.
Others have explained why having the *.suo and *.user files under source control is not a good idea.
I'd like to suggest that you add these patterns to the svn:ignore property for 2 reasons:
So other developers won't wind up
with one developer's settings.
So when you view status, or commit
files, those files won't clutter the code base and obscure new files you need to add.
We don't commit the binary file (*.suo), but we commit the .user file. The .user file contains for example the start options for debugging the project. You can find the start options in the properties of the project in the tab "Debug". We used NUnit in some projects and configured the nunit-gui.exe as the start option for the project. Without the .user file, each team member would have to configure it separately.
Hope this helps.
Since I found this question/answer through Google in 2011, I thought I'd take a second and add the link for the *.SDF files created by Visual Studio 2010 to the list of files that probably should not be added to version control (the IDE will re-create them). Since I wasn't sure that a *.sdf file may have a legitimate use elsewhere, I only ignored the specific [projectname].sdf file from SVN.
Why does the Visual Studio conversion wizard 2010 create a massive SDF database file?
No, you should not add them to source control since - as you said - they're user specific.
SUO (Solution User Options): Records
all of the options that you might
associate with your solution so that
each time you open it, it includes
customizations that you
have made.
The .user file contains the user options for the project (while SUO is for the solution) and extends the project file name (e.g. anything.csproj.user contains user settings for the anything.csproj project).
This appears to be Microsoft's opinion on the matter:
Adding (and editing) .suo files to source control
I don't know why your project stores the DebuggingWorkingDirectory in
the suo file. If that is a user specific setting you should consider
storing that in the *.proj.user filename. If that setting is shareable
between all users working on the project you should consider storing
it in the project file itself.
Don't even think of adding the suo file to source control! The SUO
(soluton user options) file is meant to contain user-specific
settings, and should not be shared amongst users working on the same
solution. If you'd be adding the suo file in the scc database I don't
know what other things in the IDE you'd break, but from source control
point of view you will break web projects scc integration, the Lan vs
Internet plugin used by different users for VSS access, and you could
even cause the scc to break completely (VSS database path stored in
suo file that may be valid for you may not be valid for another user).
Alin Constantin (MSFT)
By default Microsoft's Visual SourceSafe does not include these files in the source control because they are user-specific settings files. I would follow that model if you're using SVN as source control.
Visual Studio will automatically create them. I don't recommend putting them in source control. There have been numerous times where a local developer's SOU file was causing VS to behave erratically on that developers box. Deleting the file and then letting VS recreate it always fixed the issues.
No.
I just wanted a real short answer, and there wasn't any.
On the MSDN website, it clearly states that
The solution user options (.suo) file contains per-user solution
options. This file should not be checked in to source code control.
So I'd say it is pretty safe to ignore these files while checking in stuff to your source control.
I wouldn't. Anything that could change per "user" is usually not good in source control. .suo, .user, obj/bin directories
These files are user-specific options, which should be independent of the solution itself. Visual Studio will create new ones as necessary, so they do not need to be checked in to source control. Indeed, it would probably be better not to as this allows individual developers to customize their environment as they see fit.
You cannot source-control the .user files, because that's user specific. It contains the name of remote machine and other user-dependent things. It's a vcproj related file.
The .suo file is a sln related file and it contains the "solution user options" (startup project(s), windows position (what's docked and where, what's floating), etc.)
It's a binary file, and I don't know if it contains something "user related".
In our company we do not take those files under source control.
They contain the specific settings about the project that are typically assigned to a single developer (like, for example, the starting project and starting page to start when you debug your application).
So it's better not adding them to version control, leaving VS recreate them so that each developer can have the specific settings they want.
.user is the user settings, and I think .suo is the solution user options. You don't want these files under source control; they will be re-created for each user.
Others have explained that no, you don't want this in version control. You should configure your version control system to ignore the file (e.g. via a .gitignore file).
To really understand why, it helps to see what's actually in this file. I wrote a command line tool that lets you see the .suo file's contents.
Install it on your machine via:
dotnet tool install -g suo
It has two sub-commands, keys and view.
suo keys <path-to-suo-file>
This will dump out the key for each value in the file. For example (abridged):
nuget
ProjInfoEx
BookmarkState
DebuggerWatches
HiddenSlnFolders
ObjMgrContentsV8
UnloadedProjects
ClassViewContents
OutliningStateDir
ProjExplorerState
TaskListShortcuts
XmlPackageOptions
BackgroundLoadData
DebuggerExceptions
DebuggerFindSource
DebuggerFindSymbol
ILSpy-234190A6EE66
MRU Solution Files
UnloadedProjectsEx
ApplicationInsights
DebuggerBreakpoints
OutliningStateV1674
...
As you can see, lots of IDE features use this file to store their state.
Use the view command to see a given key's value. For example:
$ suo view nuget --format=utf8 .suo
nuget
?{"WindowSettings":{"project:MyProject":{"SourceRepository":"nuget.org","ShowPreviewWindow":false,"ShowDeprecatedFrameworkWindow":true,"RemoveDependencies":false,"ForceRemove":false,"IncludePrerelease":false,"SelectedFilter":"UpdatesAvailable","DependencyBehavior":"Lowest","FileConflictAction":"PromptUser","OptionsExpanded":false,"SortPropertyName":"ProjectName","SortDirection":"Ascending"}}}
More information on the tool here: https://github.com/drewnoakes/suo
Using Rational ClearCase the answer is no. Only the .sln & .*proj should be registered in source code control.
I can't answer for other vendors. If I recall correctly, these files are "user" specific options, your environment.
Don't add any of those files into version control. These files are auto generated with work station specific information, if checked-in to version control that will cause trouble in other work stations.
No, they shouldn't be committed to source control as they are developer/machine-specific local settings.
GitHub maintain a list of suggested file types for Visual Studio users to ignore at https://github.com/github/gitignore/blob/master/VisualStudio.gitignore
For svn, I have the following global-ignore property set:
*.DotSettings.User
*.onetoc2
*.suo .vs PrecompiledWeb thumbs.db obj bin debug
*.user *.vshost.*
*.tss
*.dbml.layout
As explained in other answers, both .suo and .user shouldn't be added to source control, since they are user/machine-specific (BTW .suo for newest versions of VS was moved into dedicated temporary directory .vs, which should be kept out of source control completely).
However if your application requires some setup of environment for debugging in VS (such settings are usually kept in .user file), it may be handy to prepare a sample file (naming it like .user.SAMPLE) and add it to source control for references.
Instead of hard-coded absolute path in such file, it makes sense to use relative ones or rely on environment variables, so the sample may be generic enough to be easily re-usable by others.
If you set your executable dir dependencies in ProjectProperties>Debugging>Environment, the paths are stored in '.user' files.
Suppose I set this string in above-mentioned field: "PATH=C:\xyz\bin"
This is how it will get stored in '.user' file:
<LocalDebuggerEnvironment>PATH=C:\xyz\bin$(LocalDebuggerEnvironment)</LocalDebuggerEnvironment>
This helped us a lot while working in OpenCV. We could use different versions of OpenCV for different projects. Another advantage is, it was very easy to set up our projects on a new machine. We just had to copy corresponding dependency dirs. So for some projects, I prefer to add the '.user' to source control.
Even though, it is entirely dependent on projects. You can take a call based on your needs.