I am trying to deploy a Bamboo Deployment Project. On manual deploy the project only gets queued and never starts.
I have three Tasks:
Clean working directory
Dowload war artifact
Deploy to server with a script
I also tried my deployment project it with one simple echo script task for debugging purposes. This also never executes and no logs appear.
Can anyone help or knows a possible reason for this problem?
This may happen in two cases
The agent with which you are trying to build may not have the necessary capabilities.
The agent might be dedicated to some other projects.
The solution is to add necessary capabilities in the first case or to dedicate the agent to deployment project also.
Related
I am trying to create a release pipeline in Azure DevOps. We already have a functioning build pipeline that works well, it is able to package the build with VSBuild and publish it as an artifact. Then in the release pipeline I am using an IIS Deployment job (which includes IIS Manage and IIS Deploy tasks) and it gets that artifact to deploy.
The problem is that we already have a publish profile (.pubxml) that should take care of pretty much everything the IIS Deployment is doing (at least as far I as I understand it). So to me it seems I have two options that don't require me to refactor the project configuration itself.
I can try to mimic the settings on the IIS Deployment job to match our .pubxml as closely as possible and manually applying any changes that aren't doable through the task settings. Obviously this is not ideal as that would require us to update both when ever we make changes and it introduces a large chance of the pipeline breaking down over time.
I can scrap the idea of using IIS Deployment and just use a VSBuild task that uses arguments /p:DeployOnBuild=true /p:PublishProfile=Staging. This doesn't seem like best practices because it means my release pipeline isn't passing a build package to deploy, it is just creating a new one at each stage.
So is there a better option that would allow me to utilize the package I created with VSBuild and the .pubxml configuration together in a deploy? If that isn't possible then are either of my options the "correct" way to handle my situation or am I just missing another method of deployment I could use?
Thank you for any help or insight you can provide. Please let me know if there is any more information I can give that would be useful.
You can try using publish settings file (*.publishsettings) for your IIS deployment.
A publish settings file (.publishsettings) is different than a publishing profile (.pubxml) created in Visual Studio. A publish settings file is created by IIS or Azure App Service, or it can be manually created, and then it can be imported into Visual Studio.
To view more details, you can see:
Publish an application to IIS by importing publish settings in Visual Studio
Deploy your app to a folder, IIS, Azure, or another destination
So unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way I can achieve everything I wanted in this. The publish profiles are required for when we build the project so without making changes to how we configure those I need to build the project whenever I want to deploy. Ultimately I went with option #2. I essentially just copied most of the build tasks used in the testing pipeline and placed those in the release pipeline with a few modified commands to actually deploy the build once finished. It all seems to work just fine but still doesn't feel like best practices. If I am missing something please let me know and I will make updates as appropriate.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how to correctly deploy to different environments with TeamCity (in terms of cross BuildConfiguration dependencies) and hope to get some input as to how to configure my SubProjects/BuildConfigurations properly. Lets start based on a concrete example: I made this test "TeamcityConfigurationTests" to better learn how TeamCity handled dependencies, and the current state shows the result i am looking for:
I have 3 subProjects, Dev, Test and Prod - and all associated tasks for those "environments" as seperate build configurations within that subProject. This is to more clearly visualize what is going on, and if anything breaks, to be able to see immediately what is broken (separate Build, UnitTest and DeployToDev BuildConfigurations, rather than 3 different steps in one single Build Configuration).
Ideally, i only want to build my application once in the Dev.Build step, and let the Dev.UnitTest and Dev.DeployToDev steps grab that artifact and run tests and deploy. That i got going for me, by having snapshot and artifact dependencies. But i am having trouble getting the correct artifact when i want to deploy from Dev -> Test or Test -> Prod.
My issue is to correctly reference the latest successfully DEV deployed artifact when running Test.DeployToTest - and the same for getting the latest successfully TEST deployed artifact when running Prod.DeployToProd. (Essentially i want to promote the artifact to the next environment).
Now, my issue is, if I in the Test.DeployToTest have a SnapshotDependency to Dev.DeployToDev and an artifact dependency to Dev.Build, and the VCS source has changed since Deploy to Dev has run, it triggeres running all the DEV steps again. This is not the worst part, the same happens when i run Prod.DeployToProd if the VCS source changed since the initial build on dev (because of all the snapshot dependencies). Meaning, that rather than promoting Test -> Prod, I Build and deploy whatever is currently on VCS to Dev, Test AND Prod.
How am i supposed to set this up correctly?
The only other option i am aware of, is letting Dev.DeployToDev also publish the same artifact, and only have an (LatestSuccessful) ArtifactDependency in Test.DeployToTest. I would also have to publish the artifact again in Test.DeployToTest, for letting Prod.DeployToProd only have a (LatestSuccessfull) artifact dependency to Test.DeployToTest. (This would be to get rid of the SnapshotDependencies causing previous environments to run build/deploy again in case of VCS changes). But then i am publishing the artifact 3 times, rather than just the one time when the application is originally built in DEV - which i would like to avoid. Also, i have cases where no artifact is needed for deploying to Test and Prod, so there is no artifact to depend on (essentially i only need the BuildNumber from the "Dependent" environment i want to promote from).
I hope for some input. Thank you
Regards
Frederik
For anyone wondering, i made a JetBrains support ticket, and got the following response:
Basically, there are options to resolve your case:
Option 1: use "Promote" action form the build's Actions top-right menu
(or change the type of the Deploy* configurations to deployment and
use the action from the block on the build results. This is the
preferred way: before deploying you select the build to deploy and
"promote" it to the next environment. There is also an experimental
hidden feature to hide the "Run" button: add
"teamcity.ui.runButton.caption" configuration parameter in the build
configurations to empty value.
Option 2: do not use snapshot dependency, use only artifact dependency
on the latest successful build. However, when you run the build you
cannot be sure that the last successful build you see will be
deployed: while the build is standing int he queue, another
Dev.DeployToDev can finish and then be deployed as the last
successful.
We went with option 1
My question is about maintainability of vNext/Octopus processes vs XAML based processes. Or rather about the impossibility to maintain them sanely leading me to believe we are doing something terribly wrong.
Given:
Microsoft pushes to phase out its TFS XAML builds in favour of the vNext builds
Octopus Deploy is a popular deployment automation framework
We have many XAML based builds, but starting to port to vNext
The deployments are automated with Octopus Deploy
Concretely, we have three kinds of builds going on in QA:
Old XAML based compilation builds producing artifacts to be deployed
Ultimately just builds the code, zips it and places in a well-known location
New vNext compilation builds producing artifacts to be deployed
Same as above
Deployment builds
XAML based build definition per deployment environment. This is the source of truth for the particular deployment, containing all the configuration URLs, connection strings, certificate thumbprints, etc.. The build definition has over 100 build parameters. Each time a new environment is setup we clone an existing XAML build definition and change the parameters.
This build unpacks the build artifact, generates all the web/app config files based on the configuration parameters and kicks off Octopus Deploy with a lot of parameters using octo.exe and waiting for the end
Octopus Deploy process
Creates 3 packages from the build artifact previously unpacked by the XAML build to match three areas of deployment - web farm, background job engine cluster and the database
Delivers the relevant packages to the relevant tentacles.
The tentacles unpack and setup their respective packages
So, if we have 50 deployment environments, then we have 50 XAML deployment builds, each capturing the context of the respective environment. But the XAML deployment build delegates the deployment job to Octopus and here we are forced to have 50 Octopus projects - one per deployment.
Why is it so? We examined the option of having just one Octopus Project, but what would be the Release versions of such project? In order for us to be able to navigate amongst the gazillion releases, the release version must include:
The build version of the deployed code, e.g. 55.0.18709.3
The name of the deployment environment, e.g. atwfm
Using the example above this gives us 55.0.18709.3-atwfm, but sometimes we want to deploy the same build artifact in the same deployment environment twice. But the only Octopus project would already have the release 55.0.18709.3-atwfm, so how to deploy 55.0.18709.3 in atwfm again, without deleting the already existing release?
We could not find a workaround and so, we have Octopus project per deployment.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRAZY because Octopus projects are a pain to update. Suppose we need to add a step - go do it in 50 projects. There are great advises on the Internet to use automation to edit multiple projects. Not ideal at all.
vNext, BTW, has the same problem. If I am to port the existing XAML builds to vNext I will end up with 50 vNext deployment builds. If I decide to add a step, I need to do it in all the 50 builds!!!
Note, that XAML builds do not have this problem (they have many others, though), because their the process is separate from the parameters. I can modify the workflow once and all the XAML builds are now updated with the new process change.
My question is - how do people work with vNext and Octopus, because our process drives me crazy. There must be a better way.
EDIT 1
I would like to clarify. We sometimes want to deploy the same build artifacts twice. We are not recompiling them and reusing the same version. No. We already have the build artifacts handy with the build version baked inside the artifact. We may want to deploy it the second time into the same environment because, for example, some databases in that environment have been misconfigured and now this is fixed and we need to redeploy. This does not mean we can rerun the already existing Octopus release, because the fix may involve tweaking the deployment parameters of the respective XAML deployment build definition. Hence we may be forced to restart the XAML deployment build, which never compiles code.
EDIT 2
First of all, why do we drive the deployment from TFS XAML builds rather than from Octopus? Historic reasons. We did not have Octopus at first. The deployment was done by our ad hoc code. When we introduced Octopus we decided to keep the XAML deploymenet builds for two reasons:
To save the cost of migrating all the XAML deployment builds with all the gazillion deployment parameters to Octopus. Maybe it was a wrong decision, maybe we could have automated the migration.
Because TFS has better facility to display test results. The deployment may end with deployment smoke tests and their results has to be published somewhere. We do not see how Octopus can help us publish the results, TFS can.
Why would one redeploy? For example, one of the deployment parameters is certificate thumbprint. When the certificate is renewed, this parameter must be changed (we do have automation for updating XAML build parameters). But often we discover that it was already deployed with wrong thumbprint. So, we fix the deployment and redeploy. Or, we discover some strange behavior of the deployed application and wish to redeploy with some extra tracing/debugging features.
There is a lot to unpack here, but I'll give it a go.
TL;DR It's the way you version the releases that's causing you all the pain. Change that and everything else will fall in to place
Lets start at the end and work backwards.
Octopus Deploy has a concept of Environments. This means that you can Deploy the same project to multiple environments and use Octopus's scoping mechanism to manage environment specific configuration.
So using your example.
Creates 3 packages from the build artifact previously unpacked by the
XAML build to match three areas of deployment - web farm, background
job engine cluster and the database
I set up an Environment in Octopus for each of your 50 Environments. (I'll use 3 environments in the example to keep it simple, but the principles apply no matter how many environments you have)
In my Dev Environment I have a single server so I create an environment called "Dev" and add the tentacle for that specific server. Then I tag the tentacle with the deployment type "Web", "Job", "Database"
I then set up a test environment which has 3 servers so I create the Environment and add the 3 servers. I then tag each tentacle with the deployment type "Web", "Job", "Database"
Finally I set up the Production environment. This has 5 web servers, 1 job server and 1 database server. I add all 7 tentacles to the environment, and tag them appropriately.
Now I only need 1 project to deploy to all 3 environments. In my project I have 3 steps.
Step 1 Deploy Web Site
Step 2 Deploy Jobs
Step 3 Deploy database
I can tag each of these steps to say what kind of tentacle I want to deploy to. Now when I run the deployment the link between the tags on the step, and the tags on the tentacle mean Octopus knows where to deploy the code.
Variables: Your variables can be scoped to an environment. So for example if your dev environment database connection string is dev.database.net/Instance and your test environment database connection string is test.Database.net/Instance then you can scope these in the variables section of the project. If your DNS is consitant with your environment names you could even use some of the built in variables to make adding environments more easy. i.e. ${Octopus.Environment.Name}.Database.net/Instance
Releases and version numbers: So here is where I think your problem lies. Adding the environment name to the release and trying to create multiple releases with the same version is basically causing you all of the pain.
Using the example above this gives us 55.0.18709.3-atwfm, but
sometimes we want to deploy the same build artifact in the same
deployment environment twice. But the only Octopus project would
already have the release 55.0.18709.3-atwfm, so how to deploy
55.0.18709.3 in atwfm again, without deleting the already existing release?
There are a couple of things here. In Octopus you can easily deploy again from the UI, however it sounds like you're rebuilding the artifact and trying to create a new release with the same version number. Don't do this! Each new build should have a distinct and unique build number / release number.
The principle I follow is "build once deploy many"
When you create a release it requires a version number, this release then flows through the environments. So I build my code and it gets a versions number 55.0.18709.3 then I deploy it to Dev. When the deployment has been verified I then want to "Promote" the release to test I can do this from within Octopus or I can get TFS to do this.
So I promote 55.0.18709.3 to test and then on to prod. If I need to know which release is in which environment, Octopus tells me this via the dashboard or API.
Finally I can "Orchestrate" the flow of releases through my environments using Build v.next.
So my end to end process looks something like.
Build vNext Build
Compile
Run Unit Tests
Package output
Publish package
build vNext Release
Call Octopus to create the release passing in the version number
Optionally deploy the release to the first environment on your way to live
I now have everything I need in Octopus to deploy to ANY environment with a single project and my environment specific configuration.
I can either "Deploy" the release to a specific environment or "Promote" the release from one environment to another. This can be done easily from within the Octopus UI
Or I can create a "Promote" using the Octopus plugin in TFS and use that to orchestrate the promotion of code through the environments.
Octopus Terminology.
Create release - This pulls together the Artifacts and Release number in Octopus to create an Immutable thing which will be deployed to one of more environments.
Deploy release - The act of pushing your code to a specific environment.
Promote release - Once the code has been deployed in to a single environment, it can them be promoted in to other environments
If you have a specific sequence of environments then you can use the "Lifecycles" feature of Octopus to enforce that workflow. but that's a topic for another day!
EDIT1 Response
I don't think the edit changes my answer, you can re-deploy the same release many times as you like. what you cannot do is create a new release with the same version number. You might want to decouple these steps could you add some more detail about what changes in the XAML build? You can change variables in a release, you can update them in octopus and then redeploy
EDIT 2 Response
That makes things clearer. I think you need to take the hit and migrate the parameters to Octopus. It's variable management is much better than XAML builds and although build vNext is comparable to Octopus it makes more sense to have the config in Octopus. As XAML builds are on their way out, it makes sense to move this stuff now. Whilst it might be a lot of work, at the end you'll have a much smother workflow and you can really take advantage of the power of Octopus.
The Test results point. I agree this is better suited to build vNext, so at this point you will be using build vNext as your Orchestrator and Octopus Deploy as your release management tool.
The process would look something like
Build vNext
Compile code.
Run Unit tests
Run Octopack
Publish packages
Call Octopus and Create release
Call Octopus to Deploy to "Dev"
Run Smoke tests
Run Integration Tests
Call "Selenium" to run Run UI tests
Call Octopus to Promote release to "Test"
Run Smoke tests
Run Integration Tests
Call "Selenium" to run Run UI tests
Call Octopus to Promote release to "Production" (Perhaps with a manual innervation)
Run Smoke tests
Run Integration Tests
Call "Selenium" to run Run UI tests
I have a Gradle project that consists of a master project and 2 others that included using includeFlat directive. Each of these 3 projects has its own repo on GitHub. To build it I checkout all 3 projects into a common top folder then cd into the master project and run gradle build. And it works great!
Now I need to deploy the resulting app to AWS EB (Elastic Beanstalk) which is also works great when I produce the artifact locally and then deploy it manually. I want to automate the process so I'm trying to set it up using CodePipelines + Jenkins as described in this document adjusted for Gradle.
The problem is that if I specify 3 Sources in the pipe I end up with my projects extracted on top of each other creating a mess in Jenkins workspace. I need to somehow configure each project to be output to its own directory within Jenkins workspace and I just don't see a way to do it (at least in UI)
Then, of course even if I achieve what I want I need somehow to cd into the master directory to run gradle build and again I'm not sure how to do that
P.S. Great suggestions from #Phil but unfortunately is seems that CodePipeline does not currently support Git submodules or subtrees
I would start common build, when changes happened on any of 3 repos. With say 5 minutes delay, to have single build, even if changes are introduced to more then one repo.
I can't see good way to deal with deployment in other way than using eb deploy... old way... Please install aws tools at your jenkins machine. Create deployment job triggered on successful build. And put bash script doing deployment there. Please put more details about your deployment, that way I can help with deployment script.
We decided to use AMAZON AWS cloud services to host our main application and other tools.
Basically, we have a architecture like that
TESTSERVER: The EC2 instance which our main application is
deployed to. Testers have access to
the application.
SVNSERVER: The EC2 instance hosting our Subversion and
repository.
CISERVER: The EC2 instance that JetBrains TeamCity is installed and
configured.
Right now, I need CISERVER to checkout codes from SVNSERVER, build, if build is successful, unit test it, and after all tests pass, the artifacts of successful build should be deployed to TESTSERVER.
I have completed configuring CISERVER to pull the code, build, test and produce artifacts. But I couldn't manage how to deploy artifacts to TESTSERVER.
Do you have any suggestion or procedure to accomplish this?
Thanks for help.
P.S: I have read this Question and am not satisfied.
Update: There is a deployer plugin for TeamCity which allows to publish artifacts in a number of ways.
Old answer:
Here is a workaround for the issue that TeamCity doesn't have built-in artifacts publishing via FTP:
http://youtrack.jetbrains.net/issue/TW-1558#comment=27-1967
You can
create a configuration which produces build artifacts
create a configuration, which publishes artifacts via FTP
set an artifact dependency in TeamCity from configuration 2 to configuration 1
Use either manual or automatic triggering to run configuration 2 with artifacts produced by configuration 1. This way, your artifacts will be downloaded from build 1 to configuration 2 and published to you FTP host.
Another way is to create an additional build step in TeamCity for configuration 1, which publishes your files via FTP.
Hope this helps,
KIR
What we do for deployment is that the QA people log on to the system and run a script that deploys by pulling from the team city repository whenever they want. They can see in team city (and get an e-mail) if a new build happened, but regardless they just deploy when they want. In terms of how to construct such a script, the team city component involves retrieving the artifact. That is why my answer references getting the artifacts by URL - that is something any reasonable script can do using wget (which has a Windows port as well) or similar tools.
If you want an automated deployment, you can schedule a cron job (or Windows scheduler) to run the script at regular intervals. If nothing changed, it doesn't matter much. I question the wisdom of this given that it may mess up someone testing by restarting the system involved.
The solution of having team city push the changes as they happen is not something that team city does out of the box (as far as I know), but you could roll your own, for example by having something triggered via one of team city's notification methods, such as e-mail. I just question the utility of that. Do you want your system changing at random intervals just because someone happened to check something in? I would think it preferable to actually request the new version.