Ian's Blog

Archive for the ‘Vault’ Category

Idle Musings

with one comment

I wasn’t aware of Randy Pausch until the day he died. That day I watched his Last Lecture and wondered aloud, “How have I not heard about this guy until just now?” Even my wife had heard of him. (I guess he was on Oprah? Seriously.) I find his story very inspiring as a fellow techie, father, and husband. It seems like he had it all figured out.

IDE-integrated source control would be so much easier to use if the whole concept of binding just went away. There’s a huge number of complications that arise from binding and varying opinions on how it works, actually and theoretically. Making IDE-integrated Vault work without binding is theoretically possible, but it would require pretty significant fundamental changes to non-IDE-related functionality. I think about it frequently, but it’s difficult to make the case that the benefit would be worth the cost.

It seems to me that with ten fingers, the natural convergence point for the human race should have been a base-11 written numerical system: you should run out of symbolic digits when you run out of physical digits. In base-10, you have to add a new column when you’ve still got one finger left! What a hack! Strangely, a half hour in Google and Wikipedia reveals no evidence of any non-fiction tribe or civilization, ever, that used a base-11 system. This gives me pause: what else do I consider perfectly reasonable and elegant that is demonstrably absurd?

I spent 9 days on Kentucky Lake this summer, sans laptop, and actually got ridiculously tan. Linda in support, (a professional people-person) mocked my bleached white eyebrows when I got back.

I’m reading Michael Lopp’s Managing Humans. I’ve read his blog for years, so in theory I’ve already read most of this, but I still find the book to be excellent. It’s both entertaining and informative. His writing style translates exceptionally well to dead-tree format, in my opinion. Lots of his advice pertains mainly to working in companies much larger than SourceGear, but I’m still enjoying it tremendously.

Written by Ian Olsen

July 30, 2008 at 10:52 am

Vault 4.1 / Fortress 1.1 Ships

leave a comment »

Vault Today we shipped Vault 4.1 and Fortress 1.1. Follow those links to the release notes to see exactly what’s new.

This seems like as good a place as any to thank the many early adopters who took part in the beta for this release. In no small part due to your help, we made significant improvements in the usability and performance of the Visual Studio Enhanced Client (formerly the Visual Studio 2005 client).

For developers who use IDE integration, particularly those upgrading from a 3.x version, I recommend checking out this FAQ.

All of the graphical clients (Windows, Visual Studio, Eclipse) also got a face lift with this release. The FAQ includes a few screen shots.

Finally, if you’d like to keep abreast of all Vault and Fortress-related releases, there is an RSS feed for our release announcements.


Written by Ian Olsen

February 20, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Posted in Vault

Vault 4.1/Fortress 1.1 Beta 1 Available

leave a comment »

Last night we released a beta version of Vault 4.1 and Fortress 1.1. The big changes include:

  • Visual Studio 2008 support
  • Tags in Fortress

A more exhaustive list of changes is here.

Written by Ian Olsen

November 27, 2007 at 10:24 am

Posted in SourceGear, Vault

Vault 4.0.5/Fortress 1.0.5 Ships

leave a comment »

Vault Today we shipped the final bits for Vault 4.0.5/Fortress 1.0.5. It’s got many tweaks and fixes, particularly for users of the Visual Studio 2005 integrated client. Fortress

Written by Ian Olsen

October 25, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Posted in Vault

Fixes Since the Beta

leave a comment »

If you’ve been trying out the 4.0.5 beta, you might be interested to know what we’ve fixed since its release. Almost all of the changes are in the Visual Studio 2005-integrated client. They are:

  • Adding an existing unbound project to an existing bound solution now works correctly.
  • Projects that are pending addition no longer always give a spurious working folder error on startup.
  • Added help for the “Add Solution to Vault” and “Change Vault Bindings” dialogs.
  • Fixed a bug where the path to web site projects was not always correctly determined in the Change Bindings dialog.
  • Changed some text to make it more clear that you’re going offline: login dialog and working folder resolution.
  • Adding a new web site project to a bound solution now gives a sane default repository location.
  • Solutions and projects are now correctly reloaded when undoing a change from the pending changes window.
  • Log out from the repository now happens correctly when closing your solution after it had been automatically reloaded due to a get or revert.
  • Get Latest and Checkout commands are now enabled when only a child file (e.g. a designer or code-behind file) is selected.
  • Fixed the weird availability of the “Open From Vault” command. It’s now always available when we’re the active source control provider.

These will be in 4.0.5 final, due out Real Soon Now.

Written by Ian Olsen

October 19, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Posted in Vault

Vault 4.0.5 / Fortress 1.0.5 Beta

leave a comment »

We’ve made a beta version of Vault 4.0.5/Fortress 1.0.5 publicly available.

Most of the changes in this release are in the Visual Studio integrated client, for which it’s the biggest release since 4.0/1.0. People using that client should definitely check it out.

Noteworthy changes to the Visual Studio client include:

  • There is a new binding management dialog that allows people with more sophisticated binding requirements to work effectively. It’s now possible to have an unbound solution and bound projects, for example.
  • Get Latest has been significantly improved. Specifically, it’s no longer necessary to perform the command twice when files have been added to a solution or project. You also no longer get annoying “This file has changed, reload?” prompts.
  • The bin folder in web site projects is now handled correctly. (Rejoice.)
  • Solutions having projects that aren’t beneath them in the file system are handled significantly better.
  • Solutions having multiple Business Intelligence projects now work.
  • The performance of Add Solution has significantly improved.
  • Linked file checkouts are handled better.
  • The pending change list better reflects checkout status.
  • Session restarts are handled better.

The full release notes are here. If you’re using the new Visual Studio 2005 client, or you’ve had trouble with it in the past, take a look!

Also, if you’re interested in other things happening in Vault/Fortress development, check out the SourceGear Development Blog.

Written by Ian Olsen

October 10, 2007 at 9:49 am

Posted in Vault

Build serialization using a mutex from NAnt

with 3 comments

A frequent topic on the CruiseControl.NET (CCNet) mailing list is how to serialize builds. Lots of people have multiple projects that build on one server, and sometimes dependency relationships between those projects are fairly complex. Solving the problem to everyone’s satisfaction without burdening everyone with its complexity is quite a challenge, which is probably why there’s no functionality in CCNet to accomodate this to date.

We don’t have to deal with dependencies for our builds at SourceGear, but we did have to resolve some serialization issues when we first set it up.

We have five projects currently built by CruiseControl.NET:

  • Dragnet 1.0.x
  • Dragnet Trunk
  • Vault 3.1.x
  • Vault 3.5.x
  • Vault Trunk

For people whose build times run into hours, it’s important to build as little as possible to fully reap the rewards of Continuous Integration. Including all unit tests, Vault builds in about 45 minutes, and Dragnet less than that. We have a smaller set of tests that runs on every checkin to get Vault’s time down around 20 minutes. We essentially build all the code for every build on each of these projects, sparing us the dependency issues. Still, there are a couple of reasons we couldn’t just allow anything to build at any time:

  1. The unit tests require that the Vault server be installed and you can only have one instance of a Vault server installed on a machine. We can’t have multiple Vault builds trying to install the server willy-nilly.
  2. We use Wise for our installers, and strange things happen when multiple instances of it are running.

Initially, I cobbled up some modifications to CCNet to only allow one build at a time. This worked, but it sometimes made the wait for a build much longer than it had to be. In our configuration, when CCNet does a build it’s actually doing all these things:

  1. Clean out the source directory
  2. Get the latest source
  3. Build
  4. Create installers
  5. Install server
  6. Unit tests
  7. Uninstall server
  8. Label source

My modified version of CCNet essentially made the entire process one big critical section. It was effective, but far from optimal. At one point last fall someone on the mailing list mentioned that they had created a mutex script in NAnt that gave them finer-grained locking. John Hardin at CRS Retail Systems was kind enough to save me the effort of rolling my own and provided his script.

Adding this block to your NAnt script gives you the ability to add named mutexes as NAnt tasks. In our configuration, steps 3 through 7 are all performed within a NAnt script that CCNet kicks off. For the Vault builds, steps 5 through 7 are encapsulated by a mutex. Each build waits for it’s turn to install and test a server:

<mutex mutexName="VAULT_SERVER_MUTEX" />

Install Server...
Do Unit Tests...
Uninstall Server...

<mutex mutexName="VAULT_SERVER_MUTEX" />

We did the same thing with a “Wise” mutex for the parts of the script that create the Wise installer.

The NAnt mutex method is just as effective as one huge lock from CCNet, but because we’re locking only when necessary, builds spend a lot less time waiting for others to finish. And we no longer need to run a customized version of CCNet.

Even if CCNet includes serialization features some day, I can’t imagine that this level of locking would be possible. Once you’re running NAnt (or MSBuild, or whatever) you’re outside CCNet’s control: locking within NAnt itself ought to be a useful trick for some time.

Written by Ian Olsen

October 23, 2006 at 2:45 pm

Fix for new projects in CCNet 1.1

leave a comment »

Some Vault users discovered a bug in CruiseControl.NET 1.1 where working directories were not correctly set for new projects. Owen has committed a fix which is now available in build

Written by Ian Olsen

October 10, 2006 at 10:55 am

Posted in Vault

CruiseControl.NET 1.1 Released

leave a comment »

CruiseControl.NET 1.1 was released early today. This is the first official release that includes all the Vault-related fixes I described a few months ago.

As a quick reminder, to take advantage of the fixes in CCNet you also need Vault 3.1.8 or better, both client and server.

If you’re upgrading from 1.0, make sure to take a look at the Vault Source Control Block documentation, as a number of things have changed. In particular, you may need to change your useWorkingDirectory and workingDirectory settings to get the same behavior you had under CCNet 1.0.

Written by Ian Olsen

October 3, 2006 at 1:56 pm

Posted in Vault

Vault, Continuous Integration, and Cruise Control.NET

with 4 comments

For both of you who are still here after that scintillating gnat update, a reward is in order. The number of people interested in both the gnat count in my office and continuous integration with Vault may very well be the empty set, but I’ll take a chance. (I was just hours away from Vail! Cut me some slack!)

If you don’t know what continuous integration or CruiseControl.NET are, you can get started here before you crawl back under that rock. :)

If you just want Vault to play nicely with Cruise Control.NET, you’ll need Vault 3.1.8 (on both client and server) and Cruise Control.NET build or later, and a look through the Vault Source Control Block documentation. If you want to find out more about what we changed, read on.

Last year, Eric subscribed to the CruiseControl.NET (CC.NET) users mailing list. The community of Vault users there made clear that Vault had several shortcomings when paired with CC.NET. One late summer afternoon Eric came into my office and channelled Shoeless Joe Jackson. Ease their pain, he said.

Due to some schedule changes we just happened to have a seriously fast server sitting unused, and nobody was particularly fond of our existing Vault build system or its 40-minute build time. So the first step was to set up CC.NET to build Vault on the new machine and make it as fast as possible. The build’s master of ceremonies was already NAnt, so tweaking that to be CC.NET-friendly wasn’t too difficult. Between dog-fooding the setup ourselves and listening to all the valid criticism on the mailing list, we found lots of room for improvment. It boiled down to three primary pain points:

  1. Lack of true “build traceability”, meaning the ability to identify (and typically retrieve) the code that makes up a particular build.
  2. Intermittent failures when CC.NET polls Vault for changes. This was especially annoying because CC.NET reports these as build failures. This appears to be a complaint when using CC.NET with other source control systems as well, but after a little investigation Vault was clearly misbehaving.
  3. Lack of backup sanity in a continuous integration environment. In some configurations, there was a perpetually-growing backup directory that was a pain to turn off, and the only workaround was pretty lame.

We had a couple of options to fix these:

  1. Implement a new CC.NET plug-in that talks directly to Vault via the client API.
  2. Fix the existing Vault source control block, which talks to Vault via the command-line client.

Primarily because we wanted CC.NET and Vault to play nicely out of the box, and because there are no other source control plug-ins that are part of the core CC.NET distribution, we chose option 2. (Option 1 gives us all kinds of interesting new options for deeper integration, and that ship has not sailed, but that’s a subject for another post.)

Build Traceability

On the surface, Vault looks and feels a lot like SourceSafe because it was explicitly designed to be a painless transition for SourceSafe users. Unsurprisingly, the existing Vault integration with CC.NET looked just like SourceSafe’s:

  1. Poll for changes via the item history command
  2. Label the folder
  3. Get the code identified by that label
  4. If the build fails, remove the label

This method was fraught with peril:

  • The SourceSafe-like “item history” command being used was far from ideal for change-polling purposes. CC.NET polls for changes every minute or two all day. It should be as fast as possible. The item history command is a nice, exhaustive change list, because it recursively returns all changes to all items under the queried folder, but that makes it a relatively slow option for change-polling.
  • CC.NET has an option to disable “exception notifications.” It turns out that when you turn this off, you disable the whole block of code that runs after a failed build, and this is where the label was being removed. When the label isn’t removed, the next build typically fails when it attempts to apply what is now a duplicate label (unless you’re incrementing build numbers on failed builds). And it was possible to accidentally remove a label that somebody else had applied. There were an awful lot of possibilities and code-paths to consider here for this to be particularly robust.
  • Get By Label is the slowest way to do a “get” with Vault. We’ve identified a number of ways to make it faster that will probably ship with Vault 4.0, but we wanted to avoid using this get for continuous integration if at all possible.

One of the things Vault does that’s not readily apparent from the SourceSafe-like GUI is track versions of folders. So we can track when you move a file from one version-controlled folder to another, for example. And you can say, “show me version 4 of this folder and everything in it, recursively.” Taking advantage of that, we can pretty easily simplify and speed things up:

  1. Poll for changes via the folder history command. This is a much less expensive operation on the server: it just returns a list of folder versions, meaning one record for every transaction that affected anything under this folder. Even better, I could essentially tell Vault, “give me any new folder versions after 47, which was the latest when I did the last build.”
  2. Get by folder version. If Vault indicated that the latest version of this folder is now 48, I can order up that particular version of the folder and all the source therein.
  3. If the build succeeds, label by version. If 15 transactions were committed while the build ran, that’s okay. The label will be applied to version 48 of the folder, which is what we built with. There’s now a label that positively identifies the code making up this build.

Perfect. Just one minor problem: Vault’s command-line client didn’t support most of it. A plug-in with access to the full API could do this no problem, but we’d already decided not to do that. So I had some changes to include in the next release of Vault. And I had to figure out how to smoothly support both the new way and the old way, and the old way still had to basically work. I had to dive into the many possible code-paths and fix the bugs in the old way, as best as possible, and add version checking code to use the new way when possible. I wrote what seemed like 100 unit tests to ensure all the permutations of options worked. (In reality it was closer to 40 unit tests. And despite my attempt to enumerate all the possibilities, I initially missed at least one.)

It was right around this time that Thoughtworks released CC.NET 1.0 Final, without any of my work. Doh! Not that I blame them: they’ve got well over a dozen source control systems to support, and the 1.0 release had been years in the making. And thanks to continuous integration there would be a tested build including my stuff as soon as I could get it submitted.

Intermittent change-polling failures

I listed this as number 2 because I tackled it second, but it was actually the biggest complaint. You had to be pretty savvy to hunt down the root of the error, so people were never sure if it was an intermittent network problem, CC.NET, or Vault. The good detectives seemed to be fingering Vault, and some priliminary testing confirmed that something was amiss in Vault-land. I was fresh off several months of server performance testing and tuning, so setting up an environment simulating a very busy Vault server took only a few minutes. Adding 20 or so CC.NET projects took a few minutes more. With this kind of simulated load on the Vault server, it took less than 5 minutes to start seeing the problems people were reporting. There were a handful of deadlocks occurring in Vault’s MS SQL Server databse.

The worst problem occurred when the various CC.NET projects logged into Vault. This was surprising, but it turns out CC.NET is typically deployed in a configuration that would be very unusual outside a continuously integrated environment: lots of simultaneous logins of the same user. A long time ago, (in a galaxy far, far… no wait. Right here in Champaign, actually.) somebody working on the Vault server actually took explicit steps to gradually slow down the login process when this occurs. The idea at the time was that this probably represented some kind of brute force password crack attempt. Whether or not this was a good decision is perhaps debatable, but at the end of the day it caused real problems for CC.NET users and didn’t provide enough tangible benefit to offset that. So I removed it. I also synchronized the order in which database tables are accessed during a login. Those two minor changes fixed about 95% of the deadlocks that caused false build failure alarms.

The remaining 5% were related to getting a version of a folder while new code is being checked in. After lots of tweaking and testing, we determined that these couldn’t be completely eradicated without some major changes on the server. This isn’t the kind of work we like to do for a “third dot” release, what ended up being Vault 3.1.7, so an alternative was in order. I minimized the deadlocking with judicious use of row-locking hints, and added retry code in CC.NET. In the unusual event that one of these deadlocks occur, CC.NET will automatically retry up to a configurable number of times before failing the build. This is one of those decisions that pains you as a engineer (or as a craftsman), but ultimately eases people’s pain much sooner than The Right Fix would, so you have to live with it and move on. And the pragmatic fix worked.
Under a very high simulated load (over 100 normal Vault users, 20 CC.NET projects polling every 20 seconds), 24 hours a day for two weeks, CC.NET reported no false build failures.

Backup Madness

By default, Vault will save a backup copy of files it overwrites when getting new code from the repository. Under typical source control usage people rarely even notice this is happening. But when you retrieve every new version over the course of months or years, those backups start to use more disk space than you’d like. Under typical source control usage this is easy to turn off, but the setting is user and machine-specific, and accessible to mortals only via the GUI client. So to turn it off on a CC.NET build machine, you either need to install the GUI client or hack the registry. People felt this was too much work for what should be the default on a build machine, and they were right. Since we were already including changes in a new Vault release, adding a fix for this scenario was no big deal. Vault’s command-line client, as of 3.1.7, allows you to specify a backup option that overrides the user’s preference. When getting source for a build, CC.NET provides that option to prevent the creation of backups.

In addition to these three primary complaints, we fixed several others. For example, you can clean out a source directory before each build, and it’s easier to build from a working directory or not, depending on your requirements. If you want to see the exhaustive list, the CC.NET bug-tracker has it all.

The new code was first included in a build in February this year, and few minor fixes and tweaks have been released since then. The “new way” mentioned above works with Vault 3.1.7, but there were a couple of other fixes made in 3.1.8, so that’s what I recommend. We’re running smoothly with a pre-release Vault 3.5 build and CC.NET build Finally, the number of people reporting trouble on the mailing list seems to have tapered off nicely, so I think we’ve gone a long way toward relieving those users’ pain.

Written by Ian Olsen

April 18, 2006 at 9:25 am

Posted in Vault


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.