Is there any service / feature of github.com just like Bitbucket Pipeline ?
I'm actually want to push my master branch to FTP server (cpanel, apache) . It's really easy with Bitbucket Pipeline, but any way to do that in Github ?
Github now has a feature called Github Actions, which allows you to execute arbitrary commands and processes triggered by events such as repository writes, pull request merges, and others similar to Bitbucket Pipelines. So your build/test/deploy stages can be run using Github's infrastructure, or you can move your app code to a remote location such as an FTP server, to kick off a code pipeline or update remote artifacts.
GitHub itself doesn't provide this feature, but you can use GitHub apps, such as Travis CI.
Travis CI enables your team to test and ship your apps with confidence. It’s built for everyone and for projects and teams of all sizes, supporting over 20 different languages out of the box, including Javascript and Node.js, Ruby, PHP, Python, Mac/iOS, as well as Docker, while giving you full control over the build environment to customize it to your own needs.
There is also other apps for continuous integration: https://github.com/marketplace/category/continuous-integration
Not that I know of. You could however setup an internal build server using jenkins, circle ci, or travis ci. I have used both jenkins and circle ci both integrate well with github(It's fairly straight forward process). Jenkins is open source, where as circle ci is cloud base solution(it has a free tier). Both I believe could help solve your issue.
Related
In my code hosted on GitHub, we perform some tests and quite a bit of post-processing using GitHub Actions. Now, we would like to (or, actually, have to) use Gitlab runners hosted by a supercomputing center to do some further testing and benchmarking. This cannot be done with self-hosted GitHub runners, because I cannot influence their decision. We do not want to move the whole workflow and community over to some Gitlab instance either. So here's my (general) question: Is there a way to use Gitlab runners from within GitHub Actions?
What I have tried and what kind of works is to mirror the repository over to the Gitlab instance and let the runners do their magic there. Using this neat approach, the GitHub Action will wait for the results of the runners and integrate them into its own results. However, this does not work if contributors fork the repository and make pull requests.
In principle, it looks like this could be doable if the contributors also have accounts and corresponding permissions at the Gitlab instance. This is fine for now, because the community is small and the Gitlab instance is accessible to external contributors. Note that manual action from the maintainers of the code (i.e., me) is required before contributors can execute code with the runners for the first time, so we should be fine concerning security.
However, I cannot get this to work for pull requests, because I fail to mirror them. As said, direct pushes are fine, but nothing else works. This leads me to the more specific questions: How can I mirror a pull request from GitHub to a Gitlab repository? How can I enable this for both pull request and pushes (and do I need even more cases)?
Any help is appreciated! I'm really no expert on GitHub Actions, Gitlab runners or even git itself (beyond the basics). If there's a better way to achieve this, I'm happy to hear about it!
I can think of several workarounds:
1. Change what triggers your pipelines
Since you cannot mirror pull requests, but you can mirror branches, adapt the pipeline triggers in Gitlab so the pipelines are launched whenever there is a new commit, instead of a new PR.
You can always use a staging branch if you want to limit the pipeline executions.
2. Use webhooks
If the Gitlab instance is available on the internet, create a GitHub action that triggers a Gitlab pipeline execution whenever there is a PR on Github, or even open a PR directly in Gitlab. It is well documented:
Trigger a pipeline using curl
API to create merge request
Our GitHub project builds with a simple "make all", but internally is complex enough to make using CI systems like Travis CI or Jenkins to fail too often to be useful. We have an internal repository and CI system, so all I'm looking for is something like a script that waits for a GitHub master commit, pulls it and rebuilds locally using the same tools and libraries I use in daily development. No containers, no public cloud or CI sites, just really simple. Does anyone know of such a script?
We run Google Cloud Functions (python), which require to be deployed from Google Cloud Source Repository. Since all the code is stored on GitHub we resort to first mirroring GitHub into Source Repository. Although this only requires a few mouse clicks, it becomes a burden to repeat over 3+ projects (dev, staging, production) times 5+ repos (5+ apps).
I am looking to automate the mirroring config, preferably to add into the Terraform automation we already use, into a hands-off project configuration. Does the Google API support this mirroring automation? So far on my Google Cloud expedition everything was available in their API!
I fail to find Terraform examples though, and would appreciate a tip.
Come to think of it, if I can take Source Repository out of the equation, that would be just fine with me too. After all, I only use it as a pass-through / empty shell.
The Cloud Source Repository API includes a Repo resource that has a Mirror Config object where you could type in your Github's URL, webhook and credentials to automate this procedure. I would initially test it with the create method, but if you have an existing Cloud Source Repository I believe the patch method will also be worth exploring.
Additionally, there is an open Feature Request in order to connect a repository via the Cloud Build GitHub App that I recommend you to star and follow, as it could further ease your automation needs.
GitHub announced an upcoming feature, GitHub Actions.
I'm positive on the benefits of CI tools like Jenkins for automatic building or testing, which GitHub Actions is aimed to be used for in the future.
Having a repository on GitHub and using an external CI tool has the huge benefit of allowing to move the repository to another Git repository platform (or even local) without rewriting of the whole CI process. With GitHub Actions, you're more or less tied to the GitHub ecosystem.
I assume the integration of GitHub's Actions will be more fluent in the native environment, but are there any other advantages or disadvantages besides that?
I've been working with GitHub actions full time for a couple of months now.
It's still early days (June 2019), but here's my list:
Advantages:
GitHub actions are just consecutive docker runs. Very easy to reason about and debug.
Reproducing the build environment for container-based Travis is
possible,
but more difficult.
On GitHub actions it's just a docker build docker run away.
The individual actions in a workflow are isolated by default.
You can use a completely different computing environment for, say, compilation and testing.
Travis CI (and I think other "traditional" CI) would run all "stages" (~ actions) in the same computing environment.
Again, GitHub actions are much easier to reason about and debug.
The main.workflow spec (a subset of the HCL and really just a directed acyclic graph) is open source.
The whole thing is a pretty thin wrapper around Docker anyway, so platform lock-in is arguably minimal.
There are already open-source reimplementations of GitHub actions, such as act for local testing.
You have ready access to the GitHub API with (somewhat limited) authentication out of the box.
There might be a vibrant community (marketplace?) where people can share actions.
For example, I'm reusing deploy actions build by different people in different ecosystems.
A directed acyclic graph (DAG) and the visual editor for main.workflows is perhaps a good way to model CI/CD in particular and workflows in general.
Takes some getting used to, but generalises well.
GitHub actions can do a whole lot more than just CI! You've got basically the whole API at your fingertips as inputs and outputs.
Disadvantages:
GitHub actions (still?) has sometimes surprisingly foundational limitations at this point (june 2019).
No native caching.
You get image and layer caching (it's complicated), but nothing else.
For build artefacts, you have to roll your own cache (via AWS, Azure, etc. ...), which can be a lot of work. (You can see a hacky setup here.
Surprisingly, no support for pull requests from forks.
It's again a bit complicated, and understandable from a security standpoint, but it's currently not possible to run actions a) against the secrets of the receiving repo of a fork PR (base), and/or b) against the would-be merge result of a fork PR (that's what travis does).
For a workflow that involves forks, that makes GitHub actions largely unuseable as CI/CD tool.
Single platform, it's just whatever you can run inside docker, so some Linux distro. That seems unlikely to change, but might be an acceptable limitation.
You can always add an action to call other cross-platfrom CI/CD services.
The documentation is still pretty sparse.
Not much in the way of best practices or scaffolding.
The quality and breadth of published GitHub actions (at least on the marketplace) is still pretty low / limited.
We'll see whether that takes off.
No great way to unit-test actions. (I hacked something together, but I'm not too sure about it).
Having a repository on GitHub and using an external CI tool has the huge benefit of allowing to move the repository to another Git repository platform (or even local) without rewriting of the whole CI process.
With GitHub Actions, you're more or less tied to the GitHub ecosystem.
Yes, and starting November 2019, slightly less so:
See Joe Bourne's annoucement "Self-hosted runners for GitHub Actions is now in beta".
You can have self-hosted runners, which means:
Your environment, your tools,
Any size machine or configuration,
Secure access and networking,
Large workload support.
To support using self-hosted runners in your workflows, we’ve expanded the experience of using the runs-on key.
When registering your self-hosted runners, they’re each given a read-only label self-hosted which you can use with runs-on.
Here’s an example:
# Use Any available Self-hosted runners connected to repo
runs-on: self-hosted
See the documentation at "Hosting your own runners".
Is there any way to programmatically check say, using the GitHub API or some API for Travis CI, if a particular project on GitHub or Travis CI uses SonarQube?
Also apart from SonarQube what other program analysis tools do people usually use?
Neither GitHub API nor Travis CI API will be able to provide you with such information - simply because code analysis tools/services are third-party systems that are not built-in features of GitHub or Travis CI.
If you want to "see how many open source projects on GitHub use static program analysis tools", then you would have to browse the source code of each repository to discover some facts that might give you this information (like for instance looking into the .travis.yml file). But because there's no built-in/standard feature on that topic, this would be extremely difficult to correctly achieve this goal IMO.