First attempt at automated build and continuous deployment so any process suggestions / improvements are welcome.
I have a repository with different build definitions. One for each of the following: database project, api, and web. (Will add more later for etl / reports) Each build has a filter so it only builds if code in a specific path has been changed.
Currently I have separate releases using continuous deployment for each build. So when the code changes, it builds that auto deploys. This works, but really isn't practical because of dependencies.
What I am looking to do is have one release definition that includes all build artifacts. Then have deployment phases that only run conditionally if a specific build artifact was created (something in that project changed). This way all builds / releases don't run every time, but are tied together when there are related changes.
I am going down the path of trying to created a custom condition on the deployment phase, but can't seem to figure out a way to make this work. I appreciate any help with this.
I have a repository with different build definitions. One for each of
the following: database project, api, and web. (Will add more later
for etl / reports) Each build has a filter so it only builds if code
in a specific path has been changed
Path filters are not to be used in your situation.
If you see Microsoft's git repo,
They have all their codebase from the Windows and Devices Group (WDG) in one big repo. Each root folder is a separate product and completely unrelated to the rest. (eg. Xbox, HoloLens, Windows OS, etc).
Path filters makes sense here because if I git push code to Xbox, I don't want Hololens code also to be built.
Web / DB / API projects all need to be built together, packaged together and deployed together.
I am assuming the project uses .NET stack.
Keep the DB, Web and API projects are in the same solution. Create a single build definition that builds the solution and create multiple artifacts(dacpac, webdeploy package etc.) by adding multiple publish artifacts step.
See screenshot of a build with multiple artifacts.
Link the artifacts from this build to the Release Definition and you should be able to deploy.
Related
I have created a c++ pipeline where the output of the build pipeline is published to drop container. The structure is the following
drop/v1.0.0/Release/MyService.dll
drop/v1.1.0/Release/MyService.dll
drop/v1.1.0/Release/MyService.dll
My engineers will need to view drop folder and according to the version that needs to be manually deployed to a client the will download the dll file.
As far as I understand there is not any way to view them under Artifacts (what a shame). I go to the project settings under Storage but I cannot view them either there. Only place that I am able to find them is under the pipeline run and then I have to find in which version of the pipeline run a specific service version was produced. This is a maze. We have dozens of c++ projects and we have to keep track of which pipeline version run of each project matches the service version.
Is there any way to be able to access them like in a folder structure?
You could use Builds - List via rest API to get all the builds for a pipeline, then use : Artifacts - List rest API to get all the artifacts for a build. It will list all the download URL for artifacts, then you could download them together or choose the one you want to download.
Besides, you could use the publishLocation argument in publish build artifacts task to copy the artifacts to a file share (FilePath). And the file share must be accessible from the agent running the pipeline. In this way you could publish all your artifacts to the file share you want for better management.
In addition, you could also use Universal Package task to publish your artifacts to your feed for better review.
I have a project where I need to perform multiple builds - across different agents. I have a Visual Studio project, an Xcode project and a NPM+Gulp project where I need to combine the artefacts into a single archive.
I have set up builds for each. And my first try was to set up a Release which downloaded the artefacts from each build and packaged it all up. But I didn't figure out how to get that package from the Release. (I had tried to use the Publish Artefact step, but got and error because apparently it can only be used for a Build)
So now I'm looking at creating a separate Build that does the packaging - and then puts the result in its Artefacts. But this made me wonder if there are better ways to deal with this in Team Services?
What I also want to achieve here is to trigger builds of my VS, Xcode and NPM Builds when I push to my git repo, then have "something" kick of a packaging step when all those three builds are done. What's a good way to do that in Team Services?
The scenario you're describing sounds like you want everything to be a part of a single build, not separate builds.
Since you have some pieces that run on Windows and some that run on MacOS, you can use multi-phase builds to run different "sections" of the build across different agents.
I've been looking into artifact repositories for something that our release team can use for storing outputs of full builds from multiple projects. From what I've read, artifact repositories are mostly used for storing library files required for a build. My assumption is that their intended use is to ensure developers and build servers are using the exact same binary dependencies during build process.
Few questions:
Is it possible to store the build output of entire projects into an artifact repository (A full release), a place to store artifacts ready for deployment?
Is this common practice?
Is it possible to have analytics of what was changed since the last build? Ex: can I see which artifacts have changed since the last release?
So, the short answer to your questions are: yes, yes, and mostly yes.
While it is true that Binary Managers such as Artifactory are used for dependency management they are also used to host entire builds.
In Artifactory this can be easily achieved through the Build Integration features. If you are not using any CI server such as Jenkins (for example) you can use the JFrog CLI to upload your builds and their corresponding Build Info.
In addition, with regards to analytics, not exactly as such, but in Artifactory you have the option to perform Build Diff and see the changes between builds.
Hope I helped,
Eran
p.s. I work for JFrog
Using Sonatype Nexus woks for what you need, you are able to deploy not just Java artifacts (example: .ear, .jar, .war files) you are able to deploy any kind of binaries, we are using it for storing reports for Orace BI Publisher, or .exe binaries.
Is it possible to store the build output of entire projects into an artifact repository (A full release), a place to store artifacts ready for deployment?
Yes, as I said before, you can store any kind of binaries you want.
Is this common practice?
I don't know if it is a common practice, but in my case It helped us to keep an order. Just evaluate if it works for you.
Is it possible to have analytics of what was changed since the last build? Ex: can I see which artifacts have changed since the last release?
Sonatype Nexus handle a version for each artifact (or binary) so you are able to store all the "history" from your deployments, also it is able to handle security policy for example you could not deploy the same binary twice with the same version it forces you deploy a new version in this way you can verify when an artifact has changed, the date and who uploaded the artifact.
This is how it looks like:
We are using Visual Studio Team Services.
We have a Prod-Branch which is builded by our Prod-Build-Definition and deployed by our Prod-Release-Definition to our Test / Integration and Production Environments.
With each Prod-Release deployed to the customer, we create a Prod-Rel-Version-x.x.x Branch from the Prod-Branch (in Case we need that for a Hotfix).
During the Sprint we are developping on a Dev-Branch which is builded by our Dev-Build-Definition and deployed by our Dev-Release-Definition to our DEV Environment for Developer Tests.
After the Sprint (or from time to time) the Dev-Branch is merged to the Main-Branch and then to the Prod-Branch. From there it is deployed to the different Stages for Testing by the customer.
When there is a Hotfix-Case, we fix the bug on the Prod-Rel-Version-x.x.x Branch and would like to reuse our existing Prod-Build-Definition to build this Hotfix-Version and deploy to the different stages by the existing Prod-Release-Definition for testing and going live with this version.
How can we reuse our Prod-Build-Definition with this different Branch (Prod-Rel-Version-x.x.x Branch instead of the Prod-Branch)?
When I look at the build definition, I think i would be possible, just be editing the Server Path (Repository > Mappings) from $/NameOfOurApp/Prod to $/NameOfOurApp/Prod-Rel-Version-x.x.x)...that should do the trick or not? But from what I read, it's not possible to use Build-Variables in Server Mappings, so I cannot change this variable for example in the Queue new Build Dialog...
What's the best way to accomplish my scenario?
The only way to do this is to create a single build definition which downloads all the branches. Then use variables in the tasks to select the version to build. This will become very messy (and slow) very fast.
Instead it's much easier to clone the build definition. Alternatively you can create a Build Definition Template from an existing build definition and use that to create a new Build Definition.
A much, much better solution however, is not to rely on so many branches.You only need the branch when you really need to make a hotfix, and you only need the stages branches when you have a lot of findings in higher stages. By improving teh way you work, you'll be able to get rid of the branches, simplifying the work for all.
Update
VSTS and TFS 2018 now support the use of variables in the workspace definition.
Background:
We have one Jenkins job (Production) to build a deliverable every night. We have another job (ProductionPush) that pushes out the deliverable over a proprietary protocol to production machines the next day. This is because some production machines are only available during certain hours during the day (It also gives us a chance to fix any last-minute build breaks). ProductionPush needs access to the deliverable built by the Production job (so it needs access to the same workspace). We have multiple nodes and concurrent builds (and thus unpredictable workspaces) and prefer not to tie the jobs to a fixed node/workspace since resources are somewhat limited.
Questions:
How to make sure both jobs share the same workspace and ensure that ProductionPush runs at a fixed time the next day only if Production succeeds -- without fixing both jobs to run out of the same node/workspace? I know the Parameterized Trigger Plugin might help with some of this but it does not seem to have time delay capability and 12 hours seems too long for a quiet period.
Is sharing the workspace a bad idea?
Answer 2: Yes, sharing workspace is a bad idea. There is possibility of file locks. There is the issue of workspace being wiped out. Just don't do it...
Answer 1: What you need is to Archive the artifacts of the build. This way, the artifacts for a particular build (by build number) will always be available, regardless of whether another build is running or not, or what state the workspaces are in
To Archive the artifacts
In your build job, under Post-build Actions, select Archive the artifacts
Specify what artifacts to archive (you can use a combination of below)
a) You can archive all: *.*
b) You can archive a particular file with wildcards: /path/to/file_version*.zip
c) You can ignore the intermediate directories like: **/file_version*.zip
To avoid storage problems with many artifacts, on the top of configuration you can select Discard Old Builds, Click Advanced button, and play around with Days to keep artifacts and Max # of builds to keep with artifacts. Note that these two settings do not control for how long the actual builds are kept (other settings control that)
To access artifacts from Jenkins
In the build history, select any previous build you want.
In addition to SCM changes and revisions data, you will now have a Build Artifacts link, under which you will find all the artifacts for that particular build.
You can also access them with Jenkins' permalinks, for example
http://JENKINS_URL/job/JOB_NAME/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/ and then the name of the artifact.
To access artifacts from another job
I've extensively explained how to access previous artifacts from another deploy job (in your example, ProductionPush) over here:
How to promote a specific build number from another job in Jenkins?
If your requirements are to always deploy latest build to Production, you can skip the configuration of promotion in the above link. Just follow the steps for configuration of the deploy job. Once you have your deploy job, if it is always run at the same time, just configure its Build periodically parameters. Alternatively, you can have yet another job that will trigger the deploy job based on whatever conditions you want.
In either case above, if your Default Selector is set to Latest successful build (as explained in the link above), the latest build will be pushed to Production
Not sure archiving artifacts is really a good idea. A staging repository might be better as it enables cross-functional teams to share artifacts across different builds when required by tweaking the Maven settings.xml file.
You really want a deployable (ear/war) as the thing that gets built, tested, then promoted to production once confidence is high with the build.
Use a build number on your deployable (major.minor.buildnumber). This is the thing you promote to production, providing your tests can be relied upon. Don't use a hyphen to separate minor with build number as that forces Maven to perform a lexical comparison... a decimal point will force a numeric comparison which will give you far less headaches.
Also, you didn't mention your target platform, but using the Maven APT/RPM plugin to push an APT/RPM to a APT/YUM repo that's available to a production box (AFTER successful testing!) would be a good fit, as per industry standards?