I have built a pipeline which runs a set of sql scripts to generate results. I would like to be able to export the console output, ideally into a .txt file or .xlsx file. Is this possible? For info I drive the pipeline via GitHub.
Thanks
Tried searching the web but have been unable to find a solution
Do you want to Save the Console output to a file and then Commit it to Github? Check the following sample Pipeline.
pipeline {
agent any
stages {
stage('Sample') {
steps {
script {
echo "Somehitng 1"
echo "Something 2"
// Read the console log
def consoleLog = Jenkins.getInstance().getItemByFullName(env.JOB_NAME).getBuildByNumber(Integer.parseInt(env.BUILD_NUMBER)).logFile.text
//Write the log to a file
writeFile(file: "Log_${BUILD_NUMBER}.txt", text: consoleLog, encoding: "UTF-8")
sh'''
git add *
git commit -m "Add console log"
git push
'''
}
}
}
}
}
I tried to run a flutter build from jenkins using the following pipeline code :
pipeline {
agent any
stages {
stage('build') {
steps {
bat 'C:\\path_to_doc\\flutter_dev\\flutter\\bin\\flutter.bat build web -t "C:\\path_to_doc\\lib\\src\\main\\main.dart"'
}
}
}
post{
always {
archiveArtifacts artifacts: 'C:\\path_to_doc\\build\\web\\index.html', fingerprint: true, followSymlinks: false
}
}
}
I got this error in jenkins :
I tried to write the flutter build code in a bat file in the root of my flutter project, and then execute this file on the pipeline code, got the same error.
What is the correct way to proceed to avoid this error ?
Jenkins has a habit of reverting to the initial workspace directory for each separate command. Try setting the directory after your steps{ line:
dir('C:\\path_to_doc\\flutter_dev\\flutter\\bin\\') {
bat 'flutter.bat build web -t "C:\\path_to_doc\\lib\\src\\main\\main.dart"'
}
This will ensure that your script will run in this location. So if your pubspec.yaml is in this location, it should be able to find it. In any case, this is a problem with the directory, so if this doesn't work, some manual debugging would be necessary to see what went wrong.
We have an Azure DevOps pipeline which uses self hosted Windows agents with Azure DevOps server 2019. The pipeline runs our front-end tests. For this we use the following command line to run the tests:
npm run jest -- --ci --reporters=default --reporters=jest-junit. Then we use the publish test results task to publish the results.
This all works just fine. However, we noticed recently that the runtime warnings in the tests aren't being displayed anywhere. We have our linter warnings displayed in the build results page by adding the vso formatter like this: npm run nx run-many -- --target="lint" --all --skip-nx-cache=true --parallel --format=vso. However, it doesn't seem jest has any kind of format argument we can use.
Is it possible to take the warnings that display in the jest tests and log them in the results page of the build? Thank you for any help, please let me know if I can provide additional information.
So I ended up using the following PowerShell task to append a version of what #PerryQian-MSFT posted into my jest-setup.js file.
- task: PowerShell#2
displayName: Make test log warnings
inputs:
targetType: 'inline'
script: |
Add-Content -path config/jest-setup.js -value #"
import { command, log } from "azure-pipelines-logging";
const { error, warn } = console;
global.console.error = (...args) => {
error(...args);
log(command("task", "logissue", { type: "error" })(...args));
};
global.console.warn = (...args) => {
warn(...args);
log(command("task", "logissue", { type: "warning" })(...args));
};
"#
I had to change the solution from the GitHub post because I didn't want the tests to fail if they hit a warning, the pipeline should still succeed, just with issues. To fix this I included azure-pipelines-logging as a dependency. Then I was able to use log(command("task", "logissue", { type: "warning" })(...args)); to log in the pipeline whenever a warning is called.
I have a situation where I’m trying to build my angular application with production config and deploy to multiple environments, say, ng build --configuration=production
The work flow here is when I build using the above command (ng build --configuration=production), the environment.ts file gets replaced with environment.prod.ts
The configurations I have in environment.prod.ts is as follows,
export const environment = {
production: true,
environment: 'Production',
_webApiHost: 'prodsomename.company.com/api/',
};
The configurations I have in environmrnt.test.ts is as follows,
export const environment = {
production: true,
environment: 'Test',
_webApiHost: 'testsomename.company.com/api/',
};
The setting I have on angular.json file is as follows,
"configurations": {
"production": {
"fileReplacements": [ {
"replace": "src/environments/environment.ts",
"with": "src/environments/environment.prod.ts"
} ],
"optimization": true,
"outputHashing": "all",
"sourceMap": false,
"extractCss": true,
"namedChunks": false,
"aot": true,
"extractLicenses": true,
"vendorChunk": false,
"buildOptimizer": true,
"budgets": [ {
"type": "initial",
"maximumWarning": "2mb",
"maximumError": "5mb"
} ]
},
"test": {
"fileReplacements": [ {
"replace": "src/assets/configs/environment.ts",
"with": "src/assets/configs/environment.test.ts"
} ],
"optimization": true,
"outputHashing": "all",
"sourceMap": false,
"extractCss": true,
"namedChunks": false,
"aot": true,
"extractLicenses": true,
"vendorChunk": false,
"buildOptimizer": true,
"budgets": [ {
"type": "initial",
"maximumWarning": "2mb",
"maximumError": "5mb"
} ]
}
}
If I build the solution for every environment separately and deploy to appropriate environment as below figure,
it works like charm, which mean the,
testApp communicates to _webApiHost: testsomename.company.com/api/ and
prodApp communicates to _webApiHost: prodsomename.company.com/api/
In the above case the artifact which is tested by QA is different from the artifact which is deployed to production, which is not the ideal way of pushing the code to production.
But my concern is I want to build the app only once and deploy it to multiple environments, where each environment will communicate to appropriate api, like below figure,
When I build it using the command ng build --configuration=production, the environment.ts file will have production configurations,
export const environment = {
production: true,
environment: 'Production',
_webApiHost: 'prodsomename.company.com/api/',
};
So if that artifact is deployed to test environment,
the testApp is trying to communicate with _webApiHost: 'prodsomename.company.com/api/, which is not right.
Here is the Azure DevOps build pipeline powershell script I use to build the solution.
Set-Location "$(Build.Repository.LocalPath)\Buffini.Web.UI\Angular"
Write-Host 'Angular Install Starting'
npm install -g #angular/cli#8.0.6 -Verbose
Write-Host 'Angular Install Finished'
Write-Host 'NPM Install Starting'
npm install -Verbose
Write-Host 'NPM Install Finished'
Write-Host 'NPM Update Starting'
npm update -Verbose
Write-Host 'NPM Update Finished'
Write-Host 'NPM Audit Starting'
npm audit fix -Verbose
Write-Host 'NPM Audit Finished'
Write-Host 'Angular Build Starting'
ng build --configuration=production --deleteOutputPath=true
Write-Host 'Angular Build Finished'
I have tried searching for a solution online but I couldn’t find any.
Please help me in resolving the issue. I’ll highly appreciate your time and help on this. Thanks in advance.
To replace app configurations in runtime time. You need to create config.json file which contains the dynamic configurations (eg. _webApiHost). You can check the example code in this blog to fetch the config.json.
In the you pipeline, you can add extension tasks to replace the config.json contents before deploying to different environment(eg. test, production).
In this way you only need to build your angular app once, and only need replace the config.json contents accordingly before deploying to different environment.
The available extensions you can check out. Magic Chunks task, or
RegEx Match & Replace Task. You can check this thread for the example to use these tasks.
I won't pretend this an answer, necessarily, but it's long enough of a thought to not fit in the comments area. Perhaps you will find it helpful. (Full disclosure: I'm not using Azure, but rather GitLab. So there would be some translation necessary, regardless, if you find this approach of use.)
Anyway, I was asking the same question a while back. After some digging, I found this link helpful
Using that guidance, I did the following:
First, I do a basic docker build. In that build I have various environment files "ready for the asking" in a folder. The configuration file that actually drives the app is at the root.
I then do another docker build, this one whose sole purpose is to take the first build and give it the desired configuration. (I do it this way because the first build is slow, but I'd like to push to production without rebuilding.)
Next I do the environment build that I want.
For staging, for example: In my GitLab build CI/CD pipeline yaml, I have a line like this....
docker build -t xxxxx --build-arg SERVE_CONFIGURATION=staging -f [A-Docker-File] .
The docker file is the same for all environments, but based upon the passed in argument, this docker build pulls a different file and slams it into the driver's seat. Since there are no secrets in an Angular deployment, it doesn't matter that there are extra (unused) configuration files lurking in the folder structure (though if one were motivated, one could easily delete them.)
Anyway, inside that 2nd docker build, I have...
...
FROM registry.gitlab.com/xxxxxxxxxxxx/compiled as default-config
FROM registry.gitlab.com/xxxxxxxxxxxx/compiled as final-config
COPY --from=default-config /usr/share/nginx/html/environments/environment.$SERVE_CONFIGURATION.js /usr/share/nginx/html/environment.js
So this docker image is nothing more than a build off the prior image, but with the desired environment file in its proper place.
Anyway, I've probably left out some details, but I'm not sure this will help you and will stop here.
I failed to deploy my file, which was developed from blogdown (dev, R 3.6.1) and hugo (0.57.2) on the netlify platform.
I have tried to update the URL of my config.toml file from \ to my target web name https*.com\ .
Also, I created a netlify.toml at the root directory.
Both of them did not make any sense.
Local development is fine, while the netlify could not be deployed well.
failed during stage 'building site': Build script returned non-zero exit code: 255
Related code:
blogdown::new_site(theme = "gcushen/hugo-academic")
# netlify
[build]
publish = "public"
command = "hugo"
[context.production.environment]
HUGO_VERSION = "0.57.2"
HUGO_ENV = "production"
HUGO_ENABLEGITINFO = "true"
[context.branch-deploy.environment]
HUGO_VERSION = "0.57.2"
# 0.57.2
blogdown::hugo_version()
This answer is probably too late, but I just had the same issue. It which was solved by the Netlify team.
Trying to deploy through Github provides a built command "hugo". This caused the error message.
Go to your netlify page and the domain settings on the failed deploy. Remove "hugo" in the command built and retry to deploy.