I develop on my local machine with VS2010 and SQL Server. Naturally, my web.config points to my local SQL Server and I can debug/development and all is well. Unfortunately, I am not entirely sure on how to go about deploying my code to a live server.
Currently, my live server consists of a virtual machine (my site is accessible from the internet). When I'm ready to put my changes on the live server I publish my app (right click on solution explorer -> publish). Then I go to the directory it publishes to and dump all the files into a network share that goes to my site on the live server. On the initial copy over, I have to manually edit the web.config so that the connection string points to the SQL Server on the live server instead of my local machine. So this is my first stumbling block. How can I easily manage development settings and "live" settings in the web.config?
Now, I also use version control (Kiln). Can I possibly tag a changeset and have it automatically deployed to my live server somehow? Let's say someone submits a bug and I fix it. I push my changeset and now Kiln has the latest version of my code with the bug fix. What's the best way to get these changes on to a live server?
I'm unable to find any documentation that covers the entire workflow but I feel like there has go to be a better way. Surely, something like this can be accomplished without having to manually edit the web.config everytime I publish and pray to the computer Gods that I didn't miss something in the connection string.
It's just me so I have complete control over all of my environments, including the server and what's accessible via the internet, and anything is possible if only I knew what to do.
How can I easily manage development settings and "live" settings in the web.config?
Re: With VS 2010 web.config transformations, it is quite easy. Please take a look at this blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/webdevtools/archive/2009/05/04/web-deployment-web-config-transformation.aspx
For VS 2008 or older, we used to have multiple config file based on environment and we used to create Debug/Release/DevTest/UAT/PROD release configuration and then in the post build event we used to replace the web.config with the release configuration based config. For example - if you build the project using "Prod" release configuration then we copy the PROD web.config to the publishing folder.
Now, I also use version control (Kiln).
Can I possibly tag a changeset and have it automatically deployed to my live server somehow? Let's say someone submits a bug and I fix it. I push my changeset and now Kiln has the latest version of my code with the bug fix. What's the best way to get these changes on to a live server?
Re: Source control and publishing to live server are two different things. The first question you are asking here related to how you manage multiple releases and have control over bug fixes for each release. The way I would do it is I will have PROD branch in my source control which will be the first release and for every major release I will sub branch it to have more control over e-fixes.
For the other question about how to get it to live server, it depends on your environment. We do it differently based on how customer environment is setup. If they have given us the FTP, we use that or otherwise we package the application into an MSI and then deploy it to UAT.. Until UAT signoff is done, we keep on updating the MSI. Once signoff received, the MSI goes to PROD.
Hope this helps.
Related
I'm learning FluentMigrator. The thing that I like about FM is that it supports the idea of Forward and Back for migrations (aka Up/Down). I'm finding that it's not ideal about this; there are some holes. Still, it's good.
This leads me to wonder if there are any deployment tools (nant, msbuild or other) that support this idea of rolling forward and back. The scenario that I'm using it in is the deployment of a web app with a related database.
Ideally I'd like to set up my deployment so that, should any part of it fail, it will revert to the previous known working configuration. With FM, this is pretty easy to do (but there are rough spots), so that covers the db. How about the files that make up the web app? Do any deploy tools have support for this?
Deploying to a Windows Server. Assume that I can't make any changes to the server.
I don't know of any Microsoft-centric, automated provisioning/deployment tools like Capistrano. Here are some tools I've heard of, but never used:
MSDeploy, for deploying web application.
Microsoft Deployment Services, for managing operating system configuration
Microsoft's System Center Configuration Manager
BladeLogic
HP's Operations Center
Up until about three months ago, we did our deployment/provisioning using custom MSBuild scripts. After a server is provisioned, deploys happen automatically using Robocopy to copy files to a share on the application server, updating changed application binaries and markup files. We've never had a need to rollback any of our deployments, but since our scripts are custom, we could write the logic if we needed to.
MSBuild is a terrible deployment/provisioning language. For the past three months, we've been writing all new scripts in, and porting existing ones to, PowerShell. It is wonderful. With version 2, there is support for running commands on remote servers, like SSH. We haven't used that functionality yet, but I'm looking forward to pushing setup scripts to remote server to provision and deploy at the same time.
We have been using Git to do our deploys for the last 6 months.
Here is the whole process:
CI server build the project
CI server checks it in to a local git repository
CI server pushes the changes to the centralised git repository
User creates an empty repository on the live server
User adds the central git repository to the remotes
User pulls the latest version over https (no need to open any ports)
It is a lot to setup in the beginning but once setup it works great. Deploys take seconds as only changed files get copied.
Another great thing about this method is that git keeps history of changes so rolling back is pretty simple. You can also roll back a few revisions and it's done straight on the live server. If something goes wrong reverting is super fast.
Also you can save some time if you use a hosted git service (github) for your central repository.
This is a very brief description but I can give you more info if you want.
Of course! My favorite is Capistrano. This was originally built for Ruby but I've found that it works just as well for other languages.
https://github.com/capistrano/capistrano
I am coding a website using the Codeigniter PHP framework.
I am using mercurial for version control.
I have 3 systems I work with. I do my coding on a Windows 7 machine using Netbeans 6.9.1. I am occasionally making commits, and pushing to a repository at Bitbucket.org, purely for the purposes of backup and version control.
I have a "beta" website (on a shared Linux box with it's own dedicated IP address) that I upload to using FTP, where I can test that everything is working as intended on an actual site running Linux.
Once I'm happy with that, I upload to my "live" site, which is on it's own dedicated server. Again I'm just using FTP to upload the files from my development server.
I realize that this is all kinds of wrong. For one thing I have to go in and change some things on the beta and live machines so that they're referring to the correct domain name, instead of localhost. For another, I'm not making use of mercurial at all to help with this. I assume instead of uploading from FTP, I could be using mercurial to "grab" a particular revision that I've marked as ready to deploy. I also think I could possibly be doing something in Netbeans differently to make the process easier.
What I want to do is have some very smoothe way to control all this, and hopefully one that knows how to deal with the issue of a slightly different configuration setup for the beta and live sites from the localhost.
Is there a standard way to do what I'm looking for? I've seen references to some third party apps for "continuous integration" but I'm not sure I need anything like that.
I'm a little lost as to what would be the SIMPLEST thing for me to do that would make my life easier....any help greatly appreciated :) Thanks!
It depends on how different the setup for each site is, and if there are secrets involved, which should not be visible on a public place (I assume you use a public bitbucket repository).
If the changes are not sensitive, then you can add two additional branches for your test and production servers, where only the configuration changes are applied. Every time you change something in default and deploy it to test, you would simply merge default on top of test, and mercurial fill in the different configuration settings in the process. Then the server deployment wold be a call to hg archive within the correct branch.
A typical change history would look like this:
O----o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o---o default
\ \ \
T1--------T2-----------T3 test
\ \
P1---------------------P2 production
where in T1 and P1 the parameters for test and production are filled in. You also can use this branch setup to mature the development of your site, where you hack in default, and only propagate stable changes into test and production.
If the changes are sensitive, you can create a non-versionized deploy script (or better a versionized deployment script and a not versionized configuration file), which patches the output of hg archive.
You should use deployment scripts anyway, which handles the packaging of the product and deploy an the target in an automated and standardized way. Within this script you can also embed information about the source revision into the final archive.
Note that this model works fine for an environment, where no changes are made on the server. If you do changes to the product on the server, you need to copy the files from the server back into your development environment(at the correct revision), to check what was changed on the server. When you want to make changes also on the server, you might want to install mercurial also there.
I am using mercurial for website development. I "think" I'm using it correctly.
I develop on my development machine, commit fairly regularly. I will somewhat regularly push my commits to my hosted site-dev repository.
If things are set up how I want them for the live site, I push from my dev machine to the hosted site-live repository. Then I pull down from that repository onto the live server.
However, there are some changes that need to be made (changing directories from localhost to www.example.com, changing the DB connection stuff, etc.).
What I did was made these changes on my live machine, then pushed them back up to the site-live repository. I don't know why I did that, really, but at least there's a changeset sitting there with the necessary config changes.
What I don't know how to do is manage this process. I'm a little lost beyond committing, pushing and pulling with hg. I'm a single developer and haven't even done a merge yet.
Is there some way to keep that particular changeset identified, and just apply it, hopefully even BEFORE I pull from the repo down to the live server?
I think you can tell from my question that I'm in a little over my head with hg and workflow at the moment ;)
This is my understanding:
What essentially you are trying to do is have a development, staging and deployment environment. You do your development using 'development' repository, test it on a staging environment and then once satisfied, pull those changes into deployment repository.
And when you pull from staging to deployment, you need to change your environment / configuration data.
My take is you should not be changing the configuration at all.
You should have configuration files such that you have a
basic configuration file
basic.conf
Environment specific overrides
basic.dev.conf, basic.staging.conf and basic. deployment.conf
Use environment variable:
The overrides to the basic configuration data should be defined via an environment
specific variable : APP_ENV : dev or staging or deploy
This way you should be able to override the configuration based on the environment without changing the configuration information.
It is not a good idea to rely on making changes to config files each time you pull your code from development to staging to deployment.
I would keep the live server outside the version control. Meaning that I would have a small "install" script that pulls updates from the repository, removes any unnecessary development files, and applies the correct configuration files. Both development and production configuration files should be in version control.
I have a CakePhp Website that is currently live. I would like to keep working on the site, without impacting the deployed site.
What is the best way to keep a production version separate from a deployed version, and then merging the two when appropriate?
Currently, I am using Git for version control.
Thanks!
First thing, get to know a version control system Subversion, Git, Bazaar, Mercurial are some examples. They are a safety net that can save your bacon because they save EVERY change to EVERY file in your fileset.
Then, typically I have a local development server and also a subdomain (staging.example.com) on the production server. I then do my heavy development on the local development server. Then I use SVN to archive all my site changes. Then, using a shell account on the production server I check out the new version of the software to the staging subdomain. If it works ok there, I can then update the live site using just a single SVN check out.
I've also heard of people placing a symbolic link in the location where the site root should be (/var/www/public_html) that points to the live directory (/var/www/site_ver_01234) , then set up the new version in a parallel directory (/var/www/site_ver_23456). Finally, just recreate the symbolic link pointing to the new version's directory. The switch is instantaneous and transparent. I'm sorry I'm not more clear on this method though, I read about it a while back but never tried it myself though.
I've also looked at Bazaar (another version control system) that has a plugin that automatically ftps any changed files to a given server every time a version is checked in.
The general idea, first of all, is to use a version control system. Using this, you're developing your site on your local machine or with several people, having a central repository somewhere.
When you're happy with a certain revision and would like to deploy it, you "tag" it. That means you freeze the state of that revision and separate it from the continually evolving "trunk". What that means specifically depends on your version control system.
You then take that tagged revision and copy it to the live server. Possibly you may copy it to a "staging server" before to test it in another environment. This copying can be as simple as overwriting all existing files using FTP, or it can involve automated deployment systems which will take care of the details for you and allow you to roll back an unsuccessful deployment. If a database is involved as well, you're probably also looking at database schema migration scripts that need to be run.
Each of these steps can be done in many different ways, and you'll have to figure out what's the best approach for you. If you're not doing so already, start using a version control system such as SVN or git. Do it now! Then you might want to google or search on SO about different techniques to tag and branch using that system. For serious deployment, start with a keyword like Capistrano or one of its PHP clones.
Our development team uses Eclipse + Aptana to do their web development work. Currently, most of them are mapping their Eclipse projects directly to the web server. I'd rather them create a local project and use that to sync to the web server project directory they are working on.
The issue is that there aren't any good solutions which is just appalling given the popularity of the two.
The FileSync plugin for Eclipse is only one-way. Meaning if another developer makes a change to the file on the server, another dev isn't even notified and could overwrite the change.
The File Transfer option in Aptana 2.0 doesn't support any sort of Sync, just manually uploading/downloading files.
The Sync option in Aptana 1.5.1 doesn't allow you to merge files when they are different. You can only update one or the other. It does however allow you to view a diff (but only if you right click and select) and in that diff you can't make any changes.
I did find a way to allow files to be uploaded to their Sync repositories in Aptana using Eclipse Monkey. However it doesn't work if a user saves multiple files at once, 'Save All', again it doesn't work. And additionally, there is no notification if a user opens a local file that has an updated copy on the server. I tried to add one using Eclipse Monkey but I couldn't find any sort of listener in the Eclipse API to do it and any Eclipse Monkey documentation is far and few between.
My only solution at this point is just to let them continue to map directly to the server or ask them to do a manual download before they do any work (but again what if someone uploads a change right after they do that).
Anyone have any ideas?
April 2010
Add EGit to your Eclipse+Aptana setup, and:
let developers push to a local bare repo their developments (see also this post)
let your local project be updated by a git pull from that same local bare repo (creating/updating) a local working directory with sources merged/updated (or by using a post-update hook as described in my previous SO link)
let your local Aptana+Eclipse(+EGit) reference that local working directory, also used by your web server.
In short, when you are speaking of file synchronization + merges, this is a job for a (D)VCS (Version Control System: Centralized or Distributed VCS)
Oct 2011: as xmedeko mentions in the comments, Aptana3 has its own Git plugin.
And it isn't very compatible with EGit: See bug 1988.
Adding to VonC answer (which is correct IMHO), what probably lies beneath this scenario is that the process you adopted is not correct in itself, apart from the tools used.
If I understood well, you should not allow nor perform a direct upload from a development version of the project to the web server. Merging is not a job for remote synchronization tools, and it should happen well before the deployment phase (upload to web server is practically a deploy).
You should have a dedicated repository taken from some point in development history (according to you release timeline), a point where merge has already happened. Then deploy it (by means of file synchronization if you want, but that is not mandatory) on a local/staging web server.
Perform there any test you run on the web site actively running (i.e. integration and/or functional tests). If there's any bug & fixing, well there are different ways to actually apply the fixes on development & staging code repository. Only after that, you deploy the staging repository on to production web server (again, synchronization tools are a way to do that).