In VSTS builds, is there a way I can know who have make changes in build steps?
Can I get history builds?
The reason for this is, we have a big team. Many time it happens that someone changes the build step for some reason and we never know who made the changes and why.
Like in git repo, we know which file is changed by who and why (in comments).
In VSTS builds, is there a way I can know who have make changes in build steps? Can I get history builds?
The answer is yes. You could check the History of the build definition:
Click on the three horizontal dots and we will get an option compare difference, through which we can know the details of the pipeline modification. If the modifier adds a note when saving the modification, we can also know the reason for the build pipeline modification.
Related
My question is a continuation to this post:
Close work items automatically on Release to specific environment
This accepted answer will work perfectly, but only if I can make sure that a build shows just the delta since last build as associated WorkItems, instead of all work items from history. Sometimes I see all items in history as associated work items in a build.
Builds are happening for several environments (Dev, QA, UAT, Prod). How do I make sure that when I run a new build, it only has delta since the last build in that same environment so that I am only looking at new changes that are coming in with a new build?
Update:
I think I get what you mean. Please see if my understanding is accurate: your master branch has many PRs and links to many workitems. You create release1 from the master, and then when the branch is run based on release1 for the first time, the API lists the associated workitems of all the commits of the master. The second time, the incremental workitem compared to the first time can be displayed normally. Later, you created release2 from the master. When the branch was run based on release2 for the first time, the API listed the associated workitems of all commits of the master(This is not you want.). The second time, the incremental workitem compared to the first time can be displayed normally. . What you want is to display incremental workitems from the last run of the branch based on release1 the first time the branch is run based on release2?
If so, it's obviously not possible to use this API to achieve the requirements. As I said in the answer, this API fetch increment refers to the increment based on the same branch, it does not apply to different branches.
But you still have a way to get the "increment" you want, check out this API:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/azure/devops/build/builds/get-work-items-between-builds?view=azure-devops-rest-6.0
You just need to compare.
Original Answer:
but only if I can make sure that a build shows just the delta since
last build as associated WorkItems, instead of all work items from
history. Sometimes I see all items in history as associated work items
in a build.
Why do you say 'make sure'?
The API should only get the delta workitems(under the same branch).
I think changes should not contain all of the work items linked to all of the previous commits(since it is only 'changes').
Do you mean the behavior on your side is unstable, do you mean sometimes contains delta changes but sometimes contains all of the changes during the branch lifecycle?
If not, then the understood of yours maybe a little false.
If yes, I think you need to report this issue to the Developer Community. Please also provide your problematic build url there in this situation. StackOverflow is an open forum, so it's not suitable for handling stuff with private information.
Builds are happening for several environments (Dev, QA, UAT, Prod).
How do I make sure that when I run a new build, it only has delta
since the last build in that same environment so that I am only
looking at new changes that are coming in with a new build?
I suggest you put each environment in a different branch, then when you run pipeline based on the related branch, the pipeline should only get the delta changes of current branch and the API should only get the delta workitem commits since the last pipeline run of current branch.
I am wondering why my build pipeline for Azure DevOps is getting practically all the changes instead of just the most recent one?
I only made one change to 1 file, that didn't have an associated work item. This is what the change looks like. As you can see I have only changed one file. So why is it detecting all the changes?
I thought maybe it was because I didn't have this option enabled.
But even with that option enabled on a pipeline setup the EXACT same way all the changes are still pulled. Am I missing something subtle here?
There's an option on the pipeline to automatically link work items that are completed in a run.
You can edit the Pipeline and in the settings, tick Automatically link work items included in this run. You can pick * for all branches, or a specific branch.
Not sure what you did for your pipeline. Every time you change the files of repos for pipeline and then re-run the pipeline, it lists the changes for each build for the current project. This depends on how many changes you have made to the repo project since the last pipeline.
The below shows:
Then, click into the latest pipeline, and that is true, it will list all changes compared to the previous pipeline.
Click into it and you could get the detailed every single change.
I'm running builds with AzureDevops piplines. When I'm creating new pipline I'm not queueing it and just saving. If CI trigger is selected pipline will run if anything is checked in.
But on the very first run/chack-in pipline will be liked (associated) to ALL check-ins (changesets/commits) that happened before the current one and to all workitems of those chack-ins.
This behaviour is not desired for me. Is there a way to disable it?
On all subsequent check-ins build will be associated only with the one that triggered the pipline. And this is what I want for the first build as well, for it to be associated only with the chack-in that triggered it.
Without seeing exactly what's happening, it's hard to provide advice. It could also behave differently if you're using Git or TFSVC variants. Here's a few things to try:
Disable the CI trigger, do your first check-in, then re-enable the trigger. That might skip the change-set and work item affiliation one time.
Delete the offending build after it runs or do the laborious task of manually deleting all links in it.
If you're using Git, you can also limit the CI trigger by using a Pull Request with Squash merge. This will consolidate the commits down to one.
There isn't the way to disable it. It would compare previous run, then include all changesets between them. So, for first run, it must includes all previous changesets.
You may create a new branch for a folder, then configure build for that branch. Learn about branching strategies for Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC) and how to select an effective strategy
a bit of background first...
I am setting up a versioning numbering system for our project which currently only has a development branch, but we are now moving towards our first deployment. We are using TFS and we use nightly builds on our dev branch.
The way we are probably going to go with this is that when we get ready for a release we take a branch off dev and call it 1.x. This shall be a test branch: we test it, fix it (then merge back to dev), test it some more then when it is all good we take another branch off the 1.x branch and call it 1.0. It is this branch that gets deployed to production. Any fixes in production will be made to the 1.x, tested and then a new branch 1.1 will be made.
My issue is with the testing of the 1.x branch. Before testing the branch will be locked for obvious reasons. My issue is that QA requires that a round of testing be conducted against a "version number" and if testing fails the next round of testing will be against a new "version number." Us developers want to tie the "version number" to the release and testing can iterate over that version...so there is a conflict here.
My first thought is to use the build number as the point in time that the code is tested against. When its time to submit a new version for testing, the 1.x branch is locked again and a build is kicked off and the VSTS number that is generated becomes a "release condidate 1 for v1.0." Mapping the RC to a build we can do manually in a spreadsheet...
...then someone mentions labels, and that the code should be locked labled and built prior to testing. I have never used labelling before and have just read that build itself creates a label in TFS.
I am now confused about what is the best way to go here. Is using a build number for a release candidate enough? Does manually labelling serve any purpose here (the only benefit I can see is that we can give it out own name and description)? Can I tell TFS NOT to create a label whenever it runs a build and just do all our own labelling at significant points in time (not every build is going to be a release candidate for example)? If so, is NOT creating a label after each build a bad idea, what does labelling give me?
I guess I am confused about where changsets, build numbers/names and labels all fit in with one another...
This is a broad question but its one of those ones where I am not 100% sure what to ask. Any help appreciated.
...then someone mentions labels, and that the code should be locked labled and built prior to testing. I have never used labelling before and have just read that build itself creates a label in TFS.
What you have read is correct. With TFS (unlike, say, SourceSafe), every server action constitutes a 'known point in time' which can later be referred to. You can see what I mean by doing a Get Specific Version... and looking in the Version dropdown: in TFS 2005 the relevant ones I see are Changeset, Date, Label. Now, as you correctly say, every build automatically creates a label. This means that at any future time it will be possible to retrieve the code exactly as it was after any given changeset; at any given date; and when any specific label was applied, thus including when any build was done.
The upshot is that you can use your own labels or not, entirely at your own discretion - the ability to retrieve a given snapshot of the code will be there anyway. I wouldn't suggest trying to inhibit TFS from producing a label for each build (I don't know if this is even possible) - labels cost you nothing.
Your branch 1.x is a consolidation branch which will contain many incremental small evolutions.
Locking the branch is not the answer.
Setting a label (specifically named "for QA test", and locked in order to not be able to move that label, is the usual way to signal the QA team they can build their own workspace and retrieve that exact label.
Then they can begin their tests against the code.
Creating a label after each build is not always practical, since not every build is meant to be tested by QA.
I am starting to get a reputation at work as the "guy who breaks the builds".
The problem is not that I am writing dodgy code, but when it comes to checking my fixes back into source control, it all goes wrong.
I am regularly doing stupid things like :
forgetting to add new files
accidentally checking in code for a half fixed bug along with another bug fix
forgetting to save the files in VS before checking them in
I need to develop some habits / tools to stop this.
What do you regularly do to ensure the code you check in is correct and is what needs to go in?
Edit
I forgot to mention that things can get pretty chaotic in this place. I quite often have two or three things that Im working on in the same code base at any one time. When I check in I will only really want to check in one of those things.
A few suggestions:
try work on one issue at a time. It's easy to make unrelated changes to the codebase that then end up being committed as one big chunk with a poor log message. Git is excels here since you can so easily move switch branches, and stash and cherry pick changes.
run the status command before a commit to see which files you've touched and if you've created new files that need to be added to version control.
run the diff command to see what you've actually changed. Often times you find that you've left in some debug logging that should be taken out or made some unnecessary change that is just cluttering up the diff. Try to make your diffs as small and clean as possible.
make sure your working copy builds with your changes in it
update before checking in and make sure that your working copy builds with other peoples changes in it
run what ever smoke test suite you might have to make sure that your changes work correctly
make small and frequent commits. It's a lot easier to figure out what has broken the build when the breaking commit is small.
Other things that the team can do is setup a continuous integration server like David M suggested so that the broken build is discovered as soon as possibly and automatically.
I usually always do a Get Latest before, then build. If build is good then I check in my code.
Here is what I have been doing. I have used ClearCase and CVS in the past for source control, and most recently I have been using Subversion and Visual Studio 2008 as my IDE.
Make my code changes and build on the local machine.
Make sure they do, in fact, fix the bug in question.
Run an SVN update on the local machine and repeat steps 1 and 2.
Run through the automated unit tests to verify that they pass.
If an automated smoke test is available, which automatically tests a lot of the system's capabilities, run it. Verify that the results are correct.
Then go to the build machine and run the build script.
If the project's configuration has changed, this could definitely break a build. Perform an SVN update on the build machine, whether the build script does that or not. Open the build machine's copy of the IDE, and do a complete rebuild. This will show you whether the build box has any problems that you have taken care of on your machine but not on the build box.
The suggestions to keep separate branches for each issue are also very good, if you can keep track of all of the issues you are working on.
First, use multiple working copies (a.k.a sandboxes) - one per issue. So, if you've been working on some complex feature for a while, and you need to deal with a quick bug fix on the same project, check out a new clean working copy and do the bug fix there. With independent working copies for each issue there is no confusion about which changes to commit from the working copy to the reposistory.
Second, before committing changes, always perform the following three steps:
Buld the software.
Run a smoke test (does it start and run without crashing).
Inspect the changes you're checking in by diffing your changes against the baseline.
These should be repeated after any merge operations (e.g. after an SVN update).
At my workplace, the safety net for this is peer review. That is, get someone else to build, run, and reproduce your solution on their machine, on their view.
I cannot recommend this enough. It has caught so many omissions, would-be problems, and other accidental pieces of junk to make it a valuable part of the process. Not to mention that the mere knowledge that you have to place your work in front of someone else before having it go on to the main branch means that you raise your own quality standards.
In the past I have used branching in Clear Case to help with this issue. The process I used is below. I've never used SorceDepot so I do not know how this can be adapted to work with it.
Create a branch for the bug fix
Code all changes on the branch
Code Review
Merge to stable branch in a different view (the different view is important)
BEFORE checking in: compile, test, and run
Check in code to stable branch
By creating the branch and then merging the changes to a different view (I use Merge Manager to do the merge) any files that were not included or checked in immediately cause issues. This way everything gets tested as it will be when checked in on the stable branch.
The best thing to avoid your problems, is to use hooks, that are provided in most SCMs (they are for sure in SVN and Mercurial, and I believe they must be in other advanced SCMs). Attach unit tests to the hook and make it run every time someone checks code in - exactly before it is checked in. This way you will achieve two things:
code in SCM repo will always pass the tests,
you won't make most simple mistakes, because they should be easily detectable, if you have decent test suite.
I like having Tortoise plugins for Windows Explorer. The file icons are all badged with committed, modified or not added icons making it very easy to see what status the files are in. I also enable the meta data for Modified so I can sort changed files in the list (Details) view, where they bubble to the top so I can see them.
I bet there is a Tortoise* plugin for your SCM, I saw one for Mercurial and SVN (and CVS, ugh). I really wish Mac OS X's Finder would accept plugins like Tortoise, its so much easier than having to pop open a dedicated app most of the time.
Get someone else to go through "every" change "before" you check in the code.