Pretty much what the title says. Is there a way to add files to a vsnet project from inside Vim? I work in a group of devs, and all of our code has solutions and projects as you would expect. I would like to use Vim, and was hoping for a way to maintain those project files when I added or removed files without having to go into vsnet.
The project and solution files are in xml and are hand-edittable. (I often have to during an SVN merge.) However, HUGE DISCLAIMER AHOY, adding stuff from scratch is a lot more dubious than an svn merge. I get to see the lines and just move them in (or not) here or there. To be confident that you're not destroying the proj and sln files, you would have to experiment with visual studio a little bit to make sure what has to be added.
There are more IDEs than visual studio... perhaps there's some clues in their guts.
The problem is that you're trying to fit Vim into the role of an IDE, which it is not and has never claimed to be. You can edit just about anything under the sun, but when you start asking it to manage files and relationships like I think you're wanting, you're asking for a major headache.
Related
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.
We have a web project with Angular, jquery and Telerik Kendo.
When searching for any text Ctrl+Shift+F that is then found in any of their *.min.js or *.js.map files, the VS (both 2013 and now 2015) will become unresponsive for 30-60s. Also when later I scroll the Find Result 1 window, it will momentarily become unresponsive when long line becomes visible. Everything becomes smooth again if I clear the search results from Find Result 1.
We have the *.min.js and *.js.map files included in project itself. Is this wrong approach?
This is a well known problem, the Connect feedback article is here. These files are poison pills to an IDE, compare to this Q+A.
Little to add, beyond not adding them to your project, the proposed workaround in the article is the obvious one. And as long as you need to search through these files you surely want to work with the non-minimized versions of them.
In the Find options, expand "Result options" (Alt+S) and enable "Display file names only". The contents of the files will not be displayed in the find results and everything will be a lot faster. You can still double click a file name in the find results to go to the exact location of the match in that file.
Does this problem happen for everyone, or only on particular machines? Are there any Visual Studio extensions that may be slowing down the search? You could try and temporarily disable all extensions and see if you have the same problem.
Otherwise, I would agree that including the .min.js and .map files in the solution / project is not ideal anyway.
My recommendation is to use Bower to manage your 3rd party client-side library dependencies. They say use the right tool for the job, and in this case, it's currently Bower.
Bower support is baked in to Visual Studio 2015. Here's some Microsoft docs on using Bower in Visual Studio 2015:
http://docs.asp.net/en/latest/client-side/bower.html
Docs for installing Kendo using Bower: http://docs.telerik.com/kendo-ui/install/bower
Now, this by default will put those vendor libraries in a bower_components folder under the project root. You would then not include this folder in your project, or in source control (but bower.json and optional .bowerrc would go into source control).
This should alleviate your problem in VS2013, but in 2015, Find in Files will still search bower_components. So your best bet is to try and narrow down the source of the slow-down.
Using Bower potentially impacts your development and build process, so you might want to avoid that if that's going to force your hand to make other changes you're not positioned for yet.
One thing you can check to try and help solve this issues, is in your gruntfile's minify task, make sure the mangle property is set to false. Mangle changes the variable names to really short names, so sometimes that can mess up your other files that use variables from those minified files, and other errors can occur. I'm not sure why visual studio crashes or wouldn't be able to handle searching for a string that doesn't exist, but it's something to consider.
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.
Is it a best practice to commit a .sln file to source control? When is it appropriate or inappropriate to do so?
Update
There were several good points made in the answers. Thanks for the responses!
I think it's clear from the other answers that solution files are useful and should be committed, even if they're not used for official builds. They're handy to have for anyone using Visual Studio features like Go To Definition/Declaration.
By default, they don't contain absolute paths or any other machine-specific artifacts. (Unfortunately, some add-in tools don't properly maintain this property, for instance, AMD CodeAnalyst.) If you're careful to use relative paths in your project files (both C++ and C#), they'll be machine-independent too.
Probably the more useful question is: what files should you exclude? Here's the content of my .gitignore file for my VS 2008 projects:
*.suo
*.user
*.ncb
Debug/
Release/
CodeAnalyst/
(The last entry is just for the AMD CodeAnalyst profiler.)
For VS 2010, you should also exclude the following:
ipch/
*.sdf
*.opensdf
Yes -- I think it's always appropriate. User specific settings are in other files.
Yes you should do this. A solution file contains only information about the overall structure of your solution. The information is global to the solution and is likely common to all developers in your project.
It doesn't contain any user specific settings.
You should definitely have it. Beside the reasons other people mentioned, it's needed to make one step build of the whole projects possible.
I generally agree that solution files should be checked in, however, at the company I work for we have done something different. We have a fairly large repository and developers work on different parts of the system from time to time. To support the way we work we would either have one big solution file or several smaller. Both of these have a few shortcomings and require manual work on the developers part. To avoid this, we have made a plug-in that handles all that.
The plug-in let each developer check out a subset of the source tree to work on simply by selecting the relevant projects from the repository. The plugin then generates a solution file and modifies project files on the fly for the given solution. It also handles references. In other words, all the developer has to do is to select the appropriate projects and then the necessary files are generated/modified. This also allows us to customize various other settings to ensure company standards.
Additionally we use the plug-in to support various check-in policies, which generally prevents users from submitting faulty/non-compliant code to the repository.
Yes, things you should commit are:
solution (*.sln),
project files,
all source files,
app config files
build scripts
Things you should not commit are:
solution user options (.suo) files,
build generated files (e.g. using a build script) [Edit:] - only if all necessary build scripts and tools are available under version control (to ensure builds are authentic in cvs history)
Regarding other automatically generated files, there is a separate thread.
Yes, it should be part of the source control.
When ever you add/remove projects from your application, .sln would get updated and it would be good to have it under source control. It would allow you to pull out your application code 2 versions back and directly do a build (if at all required).
Yes, you always want to include the .sln file, it includes the links to all the projects that are in the solution.
Under most circumstances, it's a good idea to commit .sln files to source control.
If your .sln files are generated by another tool (such as CMake) then it's probably inappropriate to put them into source control.
We do because it keeps everything in sync. All the necessary projects are located together, and no one has to worry about missing one. Our build server (Ant Hill Pro) also uses the sln to figure which projects to build for a release.
We usually put all of our solutions files in a solutions directory. This way we separate the solution from the code a little bit, and it's easier to pick out the project I need to work on.
The only case where you would even considder not storing it in source control would be if you had a large solution with many projects which was in source control, and you wanted to create a small solution with some of the projects from the main solution for some private transient requirement.
Yes - Everything used to generate your product should be in source control.
We keep or solution files in TFS Version Control. But since or main solution is really large, most developers have a personal solution containing only what they need. The main solution file is mostly used by the build server.
.slns are the only thing we haven't had problems with in tfs!
I'm trying to build a small VS 2005 solution I've just checked out of source control, and I'm getting this easy to understand error:
...\AssemblyInfo.cs' could not be
opened ('The system cannot find the
file specified. ') (The file is fairly
obviously missing)
Because this file's automatically generated, I've never paid it much heed before, and in VS 2003 (which I still work with day to day - pity me) it never seems to matter if it's missing.
So 2 questions:
1. How can I get VS 2005 to regenerate the file.
2. Could anyone explain to me in a couple of sentences what the assembly info file is all about, why it's generated, why it's a good idea to have an automatically generated file critical to my solution building etc etc.
Thanks - Andrew.
Edit: OK, I've googling some more, and it's probably significant that this is in an Nunit Test Project.
Update: Deleting the reference in solution explorer an Alex suggested did the trick, and the project now builds, but I'm not entirely happy with that as a solution. If the file is so unimportant, why is it generated in the first place? And if the file does perform a vital task, what am I missing out on by just deleting it?
Also, is it even possible to get it back? Either by getting VS to regenerate it, or by manually hacking one up (possibly using another as a template)?
This file contains assembly-wide settings like assembly version, name, etc. It is automatically generated when you change those settings using properties pages of the project. You should have this file in the project with sort of transparent icon (I think it is in resource folder or something like this by default). Locate it in the project tree and delete it. Visual studio will stop looking for it during build.
PS: assuming the path starts with .. and not ... then this file should be located one folder up from the project in the source control. So you can try looking there.