I am thinking to implement branching of the source code for release build which is currently happening from main trunk. So the way it will be structured is below
Release
UAT-sprint01
Source
Common
Web
UAT-sprint02
Source
Common
Web
I got the build definition that does the job and it deploys from main trunk. I am looking to update build definition so that it could pick up the latest one from release branch and does the build/deployment. It should also have the provision to pass the release branch version in case I want to deploy any particular one.
You sold move your deployment to a release management tool rather than a build tool.
You can use octopus deploy or release manager for visual Studio to deploy you software in a release pipeline.
http://nakedalm.com/blog/create-release-management-pipeline-professional-developers/
Related
We have dozens of code repositories in Azure DevOps, and we're working on a major release strategy.
We have a stable development branch called develop, where code has been tested and peer-reviewed, with features approved by QA. All of our service repositories have a similar structure.
We want to "click a button" and branch from develop across all our repositories to a release candidate branch, that QA can regression test as a complete system... basically a "snapshot" of what we expect is ready for release. We would then build from this code base, release to our QA environment from the corresponding builds, and when certified, deploy to production, then smoke test and merge the release candidate branch into master, then master back into develop.
It doesn't seem like there's an easy way to manage multiple builds or releases in Azure DevOps though. Atlassian's Bamboo supported this concept of "meta builds" but I don't see a way to do this in Azure DevOps. I can't seem to even create a build that is not implicitly linked to a single repository.
How can I automate this and get this workflow working in Azure DevOps?
You can use a Build Task from the Marketplace that queue a new build: the first two found are Trigger Build Task and Build Chain.
You defined an overarching build that queues the single ones and does any additional work.
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 2 CI builds. One is responsible for building an WebAPI project, the second builds a node application. Both builds produce an artifact.
I want to encapsulate both of these builds into a single continuous deployment release.
From what I can see, you can only add one release trigger that fires when one (the primary) artifact changes.
Is there a way to add multiple triggers to the release definition? So when either build is run and the artifacts are produced, that single release is deployed.
Build definitions currently only support a single trigger.
A possible workaround for the time being might be to trigger the release definition from a build task in either build definition through Visual Studio Team Services REST API.
I am using VSTS build to run a CI build. This build definition is the same for all my git branches (master, develop, features, etc).
I am now trying to implement a deployment pipeline using VSTS release management. I plan to have two distinct release definitions. One for feature branches and one for the more important branches like develop and master. The release definition for feature branches would be more lightweight.
I think this is pretty basic and usual. In fact, that's pretty much what is documented in Microsoft's typical use case for Release Management.
For both of these pipelines, I want to configure them to start automatically using the 'Continuous Deployment' trigger. When I select this trigger, I must select an artifact source.
Unfortunately, an artifact source takes all artifacts (regardless of the branch) coming from a given build definition (my CI build). Since I use the same CI build definition for all my branches, it looks like I can't configure my two release pipelines in 'Continuous Deployment' and still use the same build definition as an artifact source.
Anybody knows how to share the same build definition for multiple release definitions but only start a release for a specific branch? Anybody knows of a way to filter by branch when we define an artifact source?
Configure branch specific release deployment
Go to release management in VSTS
Go to the definition of the release
Go to tab triggers
Add Continuous Deployment trigger
Here you can select a specific branch (for branch)
Availability of feature
This feature is available in VSTS
In the TFS on-premise version it was supposed to be available in version Server 2017.1 but it is still not available in version 2018.1
Currently there is no way in VSTS Release Management to do conditional deployment based on branch.
An alternate would be to create separate BDs for different branches and then configure them as artifact sources for the RDs.
This will also give users a clarity about the artifact from its name itself.
I was hoping for some guidance on the best way to promote a build through its environments.
We have 3 environments, DEV, STAGING, PROD.
The DEV Jenkins build is running in a continuous integration set-up, as code is checked in to subversion, Jenkins will run a new build (clean, compile, test, deploy).
The tricky bit is when it comes to STAGING and PROD.
The idea was to be able to manually promote a successful DEV build to STAGING.
STAGING build would check out the DEV's SVN Revision number, build, test, deploy to staging and finally create a branch in SVN.
Lastly the release manager could manually promote the STAGING build to PROD.
PROD build would check out the branch from the previous STAGING build, deploy to PROD and tag the branch as a release.
I have tried to use a combination of the Promotion Builds Plugin and the Paramterized Trigger Plugin but with no luck. The Subversion Revision number doesn't seem to get passed between DEV build to STAGING build.
Does anyone have any guidance on their process to promote a build through multiple environments?
Another approach is to make use of the Artifact storage Jenkins provides coupled with the Copy Artifact Plugin.
When a build is completed, you could instruct Jenkins to persist your application, either as a compressed zip/tar.gz or as an application bundle (jar/war)
Trigger a downstream job and use the Copy Artifact to retrieve the recorded artifact from the upstream job (or use parameterised builds)
Deploy/Unzip artifact as necessary - Build shell script/maven deploy?
Retest application using the same sources/binaries as was created in step 1
Repeat for PROD as necessary
This approach would allow you to fingerprint the artifacts, and thus Jenkins would link builds together in the UI, as well as allow more formal sign off.
In this scenario, why do you need to go back and label the branch in svn? We don't use svn, but w/ TFS, when Hudson/Jenkins gets the code, the changeset number it has retrieved is in the build log. So we know what code the build came from, and could get back to it at any time.
Then we promote the build from environment to environment using Hudson, the source control system doesn't need to know where the code is deployed.
If it's absolutely necessary to store the SVN Revision ID, then add a build step to your DEV job that copies it to a file. Something like this:
echo %SVN_REVISION%>revision.ini
or something like this:
echo MY_SVN_REVISION=%SVN_REVISION%>revision.ini
Then artifact revision.ini. When doing a STAGING build, use the Copy Artifact plugin (as mentioned by a previous user) to retrieve the revision.ini file specific to the build and load it into a variable. Then use that variable in a command line call to "svn" to build the tag.