[Anthill-pro] AHP 2.5.0 Deployment Build Manager

Thomas Weise thomas.weise at googlemail.com
Mon Nov 27 14:04:27 CST 2006 

Works fine now. It was a misunderstanding regarding the lifecycle of the
build properties provider object. The property needs to be retrieved in the
constructor/during initialization, not from within getBuildProperties(...),
which will be called after the property was already modified. I also figured
that I can override/replace the version number in getBuildProperties(...) /
buildDef instead of introducing another property.

Is there a trick to set a script/event hook for all instances of
DeploymentBuildManager globally? As it stands I need to update all the
deployment tracks for this to become effective.
On 11/17/06, vvv at urbancode.com <vvv at urbancode.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, you must be doing something wrong because I just did a small test and
> the script that executes displays the value entered in the "build as
> version" field, not the referenced track version.
> Keep in mind that the property that you are using to store the value
> should probably be different from the default version property or you need
> to remove the old version property from the definition before you can use
> the new one (which I am not sure is possible).
>
>
> > I tried that, too. The first event in the list is  "Execute script
> before
> > Anthill checks out or updates the source." Outcome using this option is
> > the
> > same. I also upgraded to  2.6.2.19159 to make sure it is not a 2.5issue.
> >
> >
> > On 11/17/06, vvv at urbancode.com <vvv at urbancode.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Try running the script at the first event available (I think that was
> >> before the source is checked out). Anything else will probably be too
> >> late.
> >>
> >> > The script error was an environment issue, but the solution still
> does
> >> not
> >> > work. For this build event, buildDef.getVersionNumber() already
> >> returns
> >> > the
> >> > overridden version, not the one entered through the UI.
> >> >
> >> > I see in the deployment build manager log the value entered, it is
> >> > different
> >> > from  buildDef.getVersionNumber().
> >> >
> >> > Could this be an issue with the order of build property providers?
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 11/16/06, Thomas Weise <thomas.weise at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>  With the sample code from
> >> >> http://wiki.urbancode.com/home/Build_Property_Provider
> >> >>
> >> >> the log shows the script error below (run in jboss-3.2.7) while
> javac
> >> >> would compile the code in eclipse:
> >> >>
> >> >> 18:07:45,287 INFO  [STDOUT] 3569212 ERROR
> >> >> com.urbancode.anthill2.impl.listeners.
> >> >> buildeventaction.BuildEventAction  - Error from action script!
> >> >> com.urbancode.anthill2.module.AnthillModuleException: Bean Scripting
> >> >> Framework e
> >> >> rror: The application script threw an exception: Sourced file:
> inline
> >> >> evaluation
> >> >>  of: ``import com.urbancode.anthill2.build.Buildable;  import
> >> >> com.urbancode.anth
> >> >> ill2.bu . . . '' : Exception in constructor: Constructor error: the
> >> >> number
> >> >> of ar
> >> >> guments was wrong : at Line: 28 : in file: inline evaluation of:
> >> >> ``import
> >> >> com.ur
> >> >> bancode.anthill2.build.Buildable;  import com.urbancode.anthill2.bu.
> >> .
> >> >> .
> >> >> '' : n
> >> >> ew BuildPropertyDescriptor ( propertyName , description , this )
> >> >>
> >> >> Called from method: _bsfApply : at Line: -1 : in file: <Called from
> >> Java
> >> >> Code> :
> >> >>  <Compiled Java Code> : Constructor error: the number of arguments
> >> was
> >> >> wrong : a
> >> >> t Line: 28 : in file: inline evaluation of: ``import
> >> >> com.urbancode.anthill2.buil
> >> >> d.Buildable;  import com.urbancode.anthill2.bu . . . '' : new
> >> >> BuildPropertyDescr
> >> >> iptor ( propertyName , description , this )
> >> >>
> >> >> Called from method: _bsfApply : at Line: -1 : in file: <Called from
> >> Java
> >> >> Code> :
> >> >>  <Compiled Java Code> BSF info: BuildPropertyProvider at line: 0
> >> column:
> >> >> columnN
> >> >> o
> >> >>         at
> >> >> com.urbancode.anthill2.impl.utility.scripting.ScriptImpl.evaluate
> >> (Unk
> >> >> nown Source)
> >> >>         at
> >> >>
> com.urbancode.anthill2.impl.listeners.buildeventaction.BuildEventActi
> >> >> on.runScript(BuildEventAction.java:157)
> >> >>         at
> >> >>
> com.urbancode.anthill2.impl.listeners.buildeventaction.BuildEventActi
> >> >> on.buildRequired(BuildEventAction.java:86)
> >> >>         at
> >> >>
> com.urbancode.anthill2.impl.project.BuildTrack.fireBuildRequiredEvent
> >> >> (Unknown Source)
> >> >>         at
> >> >>
> com.urbancode.anthill2.impl.buildmanager.basic.BasicBuildManager.buil
> >> >> d(Unknown Source)
> >> >>         at com.urbancode.anthill2.build.BuildDefinition.run(Unknown
> >> >> Source)
> >> >>         at
> >> >> com.urbancode.anthill2.impl.queue.DefaultBuildDaemon.run(Unknown
> >> >> Sour
> >> >> ce)
> >> >> 18:07:45,287 ERROR [BuildEventAction] Error from action script!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>  On 11/16/06, Thomas Weise <thomas.weise at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Eric,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for the reply. I have configured the build event action and
> >> put
> >> >> > in place the script, but it does not seem to have any effect. I
> >> >> checked the
> >> >> > log files and there are no error messages. How can I debug the
> >> script
> >> >> > execution?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Thomas
> >> >> >
> >> >> >  On 11/16/06, Eric Minick <etm at urbancode.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I believe that is intentional. Because the number assigned in
> the
> >> >> > > original build is supposed to be the version and the deployment
> >> >> build
> >> >> > > manager is just deploying that build, it keeps the same number.
> >> This
> >> >> > > is
> >> >> > > addressed in 3.0, but allowing you to have multiple build
> numbers
> >> on
> >> >> a
> >> >> > > single build as secondary processes apply numbering stamps.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The documentation and latest download for 2.x are both available
> >> >> from
> >> >> > > the downloads page:
> >> >> > >
> https://www.anthillpro.com/html/products/anthillpro/download.html
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > To grab the one entered through the UI, you could use this
> >> script:
> >> >> > > http://wiki.urbancode.com/home/Build_Property_Provider
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > You would want to grab the value out of
> >> buildDef.getVersionNumber()
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > store it. Immediately after the build is required, it gets
> >> stomped
> >> >> on.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So if you ran that script either on the BuildRequired event or
> >> the
> >> >> > > BuildRequested event, you'd be fine.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -- Eric
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > I have an issue with the Deployment Build Manager where the
> >> build
> >> >> > > > script does not retrieve the value entered under "Build as
> >> >> Version"
> >> >> > > in
> >> >> > > > the build tab. Instead, the version is always passed as the
> >> latest
> >> >> > > > built version from the reference track. Is this a bug in the
> >> AHP
> >> >> > > > version used?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > If not, how can I fetch the version number entered in the UI
> >> and
> >> >> > > pass
> >> >> > > > it on to the script?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Is there an online version of the 2.x documentation (cannot
> >> find
> >> >> it
> >> >> > > on
> >> >> > > > the 2.5 installation we are using)? Is there a download for
> the
> >> >> > > latest
> >> >> > > > 2.x patches?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Thanks!
> >> >> > > > Thomas
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________
> >> >> > > >Anthill-pro mailing list
> >> >> > > >Anthill-pro at lists.urbancode.com
> >> >> > > > http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill-pro
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > > Anthill-pro mailing list
> >> >> > > Anthill-pro at lists.urbancode.com
> >> >> > > http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill-pro
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Anthill-pro mailing list
> >> > Anthill-pro at lists.urbancode.com
> >> > http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill-pro
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Anthill-pro mailing list
> >> Anthill-pro at lists.urbancode.com
> >> http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill-pro
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anthill-pro mailing list
> > Anthill-pro at lists.urbancode.com
> > http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill-pro
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anthill-pro mailing list
> Anthill-pro at lists.urbancode.com
> http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill-pro
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urbancode.com/pipermail/anthill-pro/attachments/20061127/68d686d1/attachment.htm

More information about the Anthill-pro mailing list