Determine version from git tags

[zod]

Instead of manually specifying the version we can use the git tag information using com.palantir.git-version. This gives us sensible version information in branches without manually increasing version numbers.

For android versionCode there also exists gradle-android-git-version but it seems rather unmaintained. I think we can come up with some own version based in the palantir plugin which determines our versionCode if we want to have it auto generated as well.

[zod]

I've kept this in draft because I wanted to get some feedback if we want this functionality. I thought this is rather controversial because in the past BRouter releases weren't even tagged.

[afischerdev]

I'm not a friend of this feature. But I see that sometimes it could be useful to have an extra counter.

I've been playing around with your branch.

1. I downloaded a ZIP file. Doesn't work - doesn't have git to get data from it.
2. a clone on your branch. Does not work - has no tag. Therefore the lib or apk name is specified only by a last commit number.
3. More personal: my workflow is using the lib-1.6.4 in a lib folder together with lib-1.6.3 - e.g. compare output. Every name change needs a classpath change.

These are all small side effects, but make development more difficult than necessary.

[zod]

1. I downloaded a ZIP file. Doesn't work - doesn't have git to get data from it.

I usually just git clone projects but I guess people who aren't that used to git prefer downloading source archives. There are workarounds if we still want to support building without git information

2. a clone on your branch. Does not work - has no tag. Therefore the lib or apk name is specified only by a last commit number.

That's intentional. Version increments should be triggered using tags. A version should uniquely identify a source revision. Increasing version numbers in branches for stuff that isn't released yet is bad style because you can no longer determine the revision from the version number.

3. More personal: my workflow is using the lib-1.6.4 in a lib folder together with lib-1.6.3 - e.g. compare output. Every name change needs a classpath change.

I think this can be easily solved using wildcards or getting the version using ./gradlew -w :printVersion.

These are all small side effects, but make development more difficult than necessary.

We would add a dependency for building with correct version information, which has it's pros and cons. As we had issues in the past with F-Droid builds from development versions I'd like to avoid this issue by either avoiding version increments before releases or automatic versioning using git.

[afischerdev]

• Zip export: I would like to hold this. When there is a workaround it's ok. I haven't tested it now.
• Git clone without tag That's intentional. Yes and it's a good way. But the local result has the useful name 'brouter-80427ac.dirty-all.jar'
• F-Droid The deal with F-Droid is to use the git tag and not the version number.

More personal workflow To my testing tasks I download every new ZIP file from the BRouter action folder. So my download folder contains this at the moment: brouter-1.6.3-all.jar brouter-1.6.4-all.jar To make sure I use the last versions for comparing. In the future I will get this content: brouter-v1.6.3-46-g91459db-all.jar brouter-v1.6.3-47-g91459ee-all.jar brouter-v1.6.3-48-g91459ff-all.jar brouter-v1.6.3-49-g91459dd-all.jar brouter-v1.6.3-50-g91459aa-all.jar Pretty clear witch one I have to compare. So I have to consult the repository to see clearer.

Same with creator in gpx files.

To compare something I use a batch e.g. (very short form) java -cp brouter-1.6.3-all.jar btools.test.test old.gpx java -cp brouter-1.6.4-all.jar btools.test.test new.gpx new variant e.g. java -cp brouter-v1.6.3-50-g91459aa-all.jar btools.test.test old.gpx java -cp brouter-v1.6.3-47-g91459ee-all.jar btools.test.test new.gpx Where are the wildcards? The only idea here is to sort it into additional folders.

At the end of the development is the final version. Every thing is done. So we can tag it. But - upps - we need a new sentence in the readme. So we have already a new version 'brouter-v1.6.4-1-g91459aa-all.jar' with the automatic.

I know you weren't too happy with my test variant of the two version names. But I still think it's a good and clear idea. Maybe not compliant with all rules, but understood by all testers. And we don't have many. So why scare some away with unsightly and unclear names?

If I may express one wish, if already version automatic, I would like to see it that way brouter-1.6.3-46-g91459db-all.jar brouter-1.6.4-47-g91459ee-all.jar brouter-1.6.3-48-g91459ff-all.jar brouter-1.6.3-49-g91459dd-all.jar brouter-1.6.3-50-g91459aa-all.jar

[zod]

• Git clone without tag That's intentional. Yes and it's a good way. But the local result has the useful name 'brouter-80427ac.dirty-all.jar'

I didn't push the tags to my fork. It works when using the abrensch repository (e.g. our GitHub action) or locally using

git clone https://github.com/abrensch/brouter
cd brouter
git remote add zod https://github.com/zod/brouter
git fetch --all
git checkout gradle-git-version
./gradlew -q :printVersion # prints v1.6.3-48-g80427ac

To compare something I use a batch e.g. (very short form) java -cp brouter-1.6.3-all.jar btools.test.test old.gpx java -cp brouter-1.6.4-all.jar btools.test.test new.gpx new variant e.g. java -cp brouter-v1.6.3-50-g91459aa-all.jar btools.test.test old.gpx java -cp brouter-v1.6.3-47-g91459ee-all.jar btools.test.test new.gpx Where are the wildcards? The only idea here is to sort it into additional folders.

The version actually contains more information and an increasing number which shows later commits. You can pick the latest version by sorting, similar to our server.sh

At the end of the development is the final version. Every thing is done. So we can tag it. But - upps - we need a new sentence in the readme. So we have already a new version 'brouter-v1.6.4-1-g91459aa-all.jar' with the automatic.

If you already pushed your tag you just follow the guidelines in the git documentation. This is no different when using those version information. The intention of a tag is to identify a version and should match anyway.

I know you weren't too happy with my test variant of the two version names. But I still think it's a good and clear idea. Maybe not compliant with all rules, but understood by all testers. And we don't have many. So why scare some away with unsightly and unclear names?

I think for testers those names are better because they can determine if they already downloaded this version or some previous version of 1.6.4. Because 1.6.4 is currently a moving target and no version.

If I may express one wish, if already version automatic, I would like to see it that way brouter-1.6.3-46-g91459db-all.jar

Unfortunately that's not possible with com.palantir.git-version, but I think switching to me.qoomon.git-versioning because it's more flexible and doesn't require a workaround for source code archives.

[afischerdev]

Thanks for the remarks.

The version actually contains more information and an increasing number which shows later commits. You can pick the latest version by sorting, similar to our server.sh

That's a good point. I'll try to find a Windows version of this. May be something like this dir ..\lib\*.jar /O-N /B | cmd /q /v:on /c "set/p .=&echo(!.!"

But anyway, this is only useful if you focus on one project. E.g. comparing results of two projects: both are started at the same point on the origin. Both made one commit and end in project1 v1.6.3-49-g80427ac project2 v1.6.3-49-g80427de or drifting on more commits. Wildcards will not help here. A clear version name will, when is a bounded on a project.

If you already pushed your tag you just follow the guidelines in the git documentation.

Ok, that's useful info.

but I think switching to me.qoomon.git-versioning

Did you try the other one already? I guess not ZIPable again.

And yes, this way of version number contains more information. But always useful? What about using this way only on action builds for the master?

[zod]

But anyway, this is only useful if you focus on one project. E.g. comparing results of two projects: both are started at the same point on the origin. Both made one commit and end in project1 v1.6.3-49-g80427ac project2 v1.6.3-49-g80427de or drifting on more commits. Wildcards will not help here. A clear version name will, when is a bounded on a project.

How would this work with your current workflow with increasing the version number in a branch? Would another branch/project just use 1.6.5 in this case because the update-version branch already used 1.6.4?

I've switched to me.qoomon.git-versioning which allows specifying own components of the version string and included the branch name. This should keep the version information unique.

Did you try the other one already? I guess not ZIPable again.

Yes, I've moved the version number to gradle.properties to treat it as fallback if the plugin can't determine a version number.

And yes, this way of version number contains more information. But always useful? What about using this way only on action builds for the master?

What's the harm of adding this information?

You can disable it locally and overwrite the version information by using

VERSIONING_DISABLE=true ./gradlew :version -Pversion=1.6.4 -q # prints 1.6.4

[afischerdev]

I've switched to me.qoomon.git-versioning

Great, I had a test with all variantes of cloning, all worked as expected. And ZIP was not breaking. But one thing: BRouter version is in all variantes is null. This doesn't work. Control over build reports standard output in server folder. The creator in gpx is set 'normal'. ... creator="BRouter-0.0.0-489-gradle-git-version-gba9a8f6" ... Great idea to add the repo name, that helps a lot

You can disable it locally and overwrite the version information by using

That are great news as well.

[zod]

Great, I had a test with all variantes of cloning, all worked as expected. And ZIP was not breaking. But one thing: BRouter version is in all variantes is null. This doesn't work.

It works if you follow the instructions above.

Control over build reports standard output in server folder.

I have no idea what that means.

[afischerdev]

Control over build reports standard output in server folder.

I have no idea what that means.

It means that I have controlled the junit reports. It shows that the version is null for the server.

It works if you follow the https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/pull/457#issuecomment-1321064015.

I did all three export ideas. No version.

[rkflx]

+1 for the concept (I only tested it locally, cannot comment on effects on the CI).

BRouter-Web might use a SemVer-compatible version check in the future. For this too keep working with this PR could you please change from hyphen (-) to plus (+) when appending build metadata, see 9. and 10. in spec. Otherwise e.g. 1.6.3-46-g91459db will be considered a prerelease version of 1.6.3 (which would not be the case for 1.6.3+46-g91459db).

[rkflx]

Conversation continued from #605:

@rkflx do you like to finish the #457 first?

@afischerdev I'm not sure what you mean by that and why you are @-mentioning me.

@rkflx When I wrote this I think I remembered you are a friend of git driven version numbers. And may be you like something to do in that direction.

I still don't understand. This very PR does just that, and I already mentioned that it worked just fine in my testing. Nevertheless it has been blocked since nearly 9 months by your objections, despite the author going out of their way to accommodate your concerns. It is not for me to "finish" something here.

I did all three export ideas. No version.

@afischerdev Is this still an issue for you?

---

@zod Are you still interested in this? If so, I'd like to encourage you to rebase on master, to bump the fallback version in gradle.properties (probably to 1.7.3), to implement the recent suggestions (static and +) and to un-draft. If not, kindly let me know and I'll see what I can do.

[afischerdev]

@afischerdev Is this still an issue for you?

I remember a fallback when git information is not present. Was working well. But I'll test that again.

[rkflx]

LGTM

(The only additional nit I noticed: Now that we include branch names in build results, we might want to improve sorting in server.sh a bit. I'll look into that and possibly submit a follow-up PR after this one has landed.)

@zod Thank you for rebasing. Note that merging the PR is blocked as long as it still is in draft state.