I have finished developing the core of a web application I have been working on. Since I was the only developer I just developed locally (lamp stack) without using version control (probably stupid but anyway..). Now that it is getting close to production ready, I have a couple other developers working with me so I set up a repository for my code.
This is my question: I still want to be able to test any changes locally first before posting to production. How do I manage this with a repository without having to maintain 2 versions of my code (that I have to synch up manually)? For one, the production code has a few differences here in there (such as database constants etc.). I'd like to be able to change my code in my local repository, test it on my local apache server, then check the code directly into production (is this even possible using eclipse)?
I am using eclipse and subversion (php code). I know I asked many questions but hopefully you get the idea of what I am trying to do...and I assume its rather common. Thanks.
In addition to the excellent answers you've gotten already, I'd like to emphasize that if there are differences between your dev and production code, you're adding risk. You should be using the same, well-tested code in both locations; any difference between the environments should be expressed in configuration files. Any configuration files in source control should be samples only; your deployment script should not push new configuration files to production.
This, in combination with tagged releases and a staging environment that mimics production, should help you promote your code smoothly to the production environment.
I would suggest a few things
Use tags/branches in SVN. When the code is production ready, tag it with a unique name.
Set up a staging area for integration testing. After a release is tagged for staging, yank it from your vcs and copy it into the staging area. This can be as simple as a different directory tree or a second install of your server.
Put constants into separate files that can copied/merged over into the staging and deployment directories
Test the staged version against dev to insure everything works as it did in your dev environment. I would point staging to production databases when I am sure it is working and ready to be promoted. Test that it also works against prod.
Once everything works in staging, update the production copy. I would suggest you create a clean deployment directory then copy that entire deployment over to the production server after copying/merging config settings.
This was my approach is dealing with perl/cgi many years ago and it worked pretty well. SVN handles tags/branching much better so it should be easier to deal with. We had very few production problems once we started staging the files before pushing to prod.
It sounds like you haven't created any branches or tags, and probably have a "trunk" that isn't labeled as such. Best practices would dictate that you have a trunk for the current stable code, branches that you develop against, and tags that are actually used on the production site. There is a short description and diagram on Wikipedia.
Of course, that's just best practice. Your project sounds small enough that you could get away with splitting your code into a development/ directory and a production/ directory in your code repository. Checkin code to the development directory, and once a change is fully tested, merge it into the production directory.
Whether you do it the right way or the easy way, it's important to do something to separate your development code from your production code. As you add more developers, it will be increasingly unlikely that the development code base is stable because people are checking in code that hasn't been fully tested, isn't complete, whatever. Spending a little extra time on managing two branches of code will save you a lot of headaches later on.
Related
I would like to raise statements regarding how properly deploy projects with multiple dependencies on production server.
E.g. my project depends on node (npm), ruby (for sass), composer, gulp etc. - things which are related to development process.
So, maybe a good idea is to avoid all those things on production server, and create a separate repository to hold there project in 'production-ready' state with all dependencies (e.g. vendor/ directory with composer deps), and push it directly to production.
According to this answer it looks like I should build everything on dev or local environment and then copy files to production, which might be tedious and maybe it would be good to hold everything in separate repository.
Or, are there already some best practices regarding this? Could somebody help me with the decision?
Thanks!
I recently joined a company as Release Engineer where a large number of development teams develop numerous services, applications, web-apps in various languages with various inter-dependencies among them.
I am trying to find a way to simplify and preferably automate releases. Currently the release team is doing the following to "release" the software:
CURRENT PROCESS OF RELEASE
Diff the latest revision from SCM between QA and INTEGRATION branches.
Manually copy/paste "relevant" changes between those branches.
Copy the latest binaries to the right location (this is automated using a .cmd script).
Restart any services
MY QUESTION
I am hoping to avoid steps 1. and 2. altogether (obviously), but am running into issues where differences between the environments is causing the config files to be different for different environments (e.g. QA vs. INTEGRATION). Here is a sample:
IN THE QA ENVIRONMENT:
<setting name="ServiceUri" serializeAs="String">
<value>https://servicepoint.QA.domain.net/</value>
</setting>
IN THE INTEGRATION ENVIRONMENT:
<setting name="ServiceUri" serializeAs="String">
<value>https://servicepoint.integration.domain.net/</value>
</setting>
If you look closely then the only difference between the two <setting> tags above is the URL in the <value> tag. This is because the QA and INTEGRATION environments are in different data-centers and are ever so slightly not in sync (with them growing apart as development gets faster/better/stronger). Changes such as this where the URL/endpoint is different are TO BE IGNORED during "release" (i.e. these are not "relevant" changes to merge from QA to INTEGRATION).
Even in a regular release (about once a week) I have to deal with a dozen config files changes that have to released from QA to integration and I have to manually go through each config file and copy/paste non URL-related changes between the files. I can't simply take an entire package that the CI tool spits out from QA (or after QA), since the URL/endpoints are different.
Since there are multiple programming languages in use, the config file example above could be C#, C++ or Java. So am hoping any solution would be language agnostic.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTS/PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES/OS/ETC.
Multiple programming languages - C#, C++, Java, Ruby. Management is aware of this as one of the problems, since Release team is has to be king-of-all-trades and is addressing this.
Multiple OS - Windows 2003/2008/2012, CentOS, Red Hat, HP-UX. Management is addressing this too - starting to consolidate and limit to Windows 2012 and CentOS.
SCM - Perforce, TFS. Management is trying to move everyone to a single tool (likely TFS)
CI is being advocated, though not mandatory - Management is pushing change through but is taking time.
I have given example of QA and INTEGRATION, but in reality there is QA (managed by developers+testers), INTEGRATION (managed by my team), STABLE (releases to STABLE by my team but supported by Production Ops), PRODUCTION (supported by Production Ops). These are the official environments - others are currently unofficial, but devs or test teams have a few more. I would eventually want to start standardizing/consolidating these unofficial envs too, since devs+tests should not have to worry about doing this kind of stuff.
There is a lot of work being done to standardize how the binaries are being deployed using tools like DeployIT (http://www.xebialabs.com/products) which may provide some way to simplify these config changes.
The devs teams are agile and release often, but that just means more work diffing config files.
SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED BY TEAM MEMBERS:
Current mind-set is to use a LoadBalancer and standardize names across different environments, but I am not sure if "a process" such as this is the right solution. There must be a better way that can start with how devs write configs to how release environments meet dependencies.
Alternatively some team members are working on install-scripts (InstallShield / MSI) to automate find/replace or URLs/enpoints between envs. I am hoping this is not the solution, but it is doable.
If I have missed anything or should provide more information, please let me know.
Thanks
[Update]
References:
Managing complex Web.Config files between deployment environments - C# web.config specific, though a very good start.
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ManagingMultipleConfigurationFileEnvironmentsWithPreBuildEvents.aspx - OK, though as a first look, this seems rather rudimentary, that may break easily.
Generally the problem isn't too difficult - you need branches for each of the environments and CI build setup for them. So a merge to the QA branch would trigger a build of that code and a custom deployment to QA. Simple.
Now managing multiple config files isn;t quite so easy (unless you have 1 for each environment, in which case you just call them Int.config, QA.config etc, store them all in the SCM, and pick the appropriate one to use in each branch's deployment script - eg, when the build for QA runs, it picks qa.config and copies it to the correct location and renames it to the correct name)(incidentally, this is the approach I tend to use as its very simple).
If you have multiple configs you need to use, then its always going to be a manual process - but you can help yourself by copying all the relevant configs to a build staging area that an admin will use to perform the deployment. Its a good first step in that the build they have in a staging directory will be the correct one for them, they just have to choose which config to use either during (eg as an option in the installer) or by manually copying the appropriate config over.
I would not try to manage some automated way of taking a single config file in source control and re-writing it with different data in the build, or pre-deploy steps. That way lies madness, and a lot of continual hassle trying to maintain the data and the tooling. Keep separate configs in place and make sure the devs know to update all of them when they make a change. (Or, you can hold 1 config in the SCM tree and make sure they know that merging their changes must not overwrite any existing modifications - multiple configs is easier)
I agree with #gbjbaanb. Have one config for each environment. Get your developers to write apps that read their properties (including their URLs) from config files and commit config files for each environment. Not only does this help you with deployment, but config files under revision control provides reproducibility, full transparency, and an audit trail of your environment specific settings.
Personally, I prefer to create a single deployable package that works on any environment by including all of the environment configs (even the ones you aren't using). You can then have some deployment automation that figures out which config files the apps should use and sets that up appropriately.
Thanks to #gman and #gbjbaanb for the the answers (https://stackoverflow.com/a/16310735/143189, https://stackoverflow.com/a/16246598/143189), but I felt that they didn't help me solve the underlying problem that I am facing, and restating just to make clear.
The code seems very aware of the environment in which they run. How to write environment-agnostic code?
The suggestions in the answers above are to store 1 config file for each environment (environment-config). This is possible, but any addition/deletion/edit of non-environment settings will have to be ported over to each environment-config.
After some study, I wonder if the following would work better?
Keep the config file's structure consistent/standardized e.g. XML. Try to keep the environment-specific endpoints in this config-file but store them in a way that allows easy access to the specific individual nodes/settings (e.g. using XPath).
When deploying to a specific environment, then your deployment tool should be able to parse (e.g. using XPath) and update the environment-specific endpoint to the value for the specific environment to which you are deploying.
The above is not a unique idea. There are some existing implementations that tackle the above solution already:
http://www.iis.net/learn/develop/windows-web-application-gallery/reference-for-the-web-application-package & http://www.iis.net/learn/publish/using-web-deploy/web-deploy-parameterization (WebDeploy)
http://docs.xebialabs.com/releases/3.9/deployit/packagingmanual.html#using-placeholders-in-ci-properties (DeployIt)
Home-spun solutions using XPath find and replace.
In short, while there are programming-language-specific solutions, and programming-language-agnostic solutions, I guess the big downfall is that Release Management needs to be considered during development too, else it will cause deployment headaches - I don't like that, since it sounds like "development should be aware of what tests will be designed". Is there a need AND a way to avoid this, is the big questions.
I'm working through the process of creating a "deployment pipeline" for a web application at the moment and am sifting my way through similar problems. Your environment sounds more complicated than ours, but I've got some thoughts.
First, read this book, I'm 2/3 the way through it and it's answering every question I ever had about software delivery, and many that I never thought to ask: http://www.amazon.com/Continuous-Delivery-Deployment-Automation-Addison-Wesley/dp/0321601912/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371099379&sr=1-1
Version Control Systems are your best friend. Absolutely everything required to build a deployable package should be retrievable from your VCS.
Use a Continuous Integration server, we use TeamCity and are pretty happy with it so far.
The CI server builds packages that are totally agnostic to the eventual target environment. We still have a lot of code that "knows" about the target environments, which of course means that if we add a new environment, we have to modify all such code to make sure it will cope and then re-test it to make sure we didn't break anything in the process. I now see that this is error-prone and completely avoidable.
Tools like Visual Studio support config file transformation, which we looked at briefly but quickly realized that it depends on environment-specific config files being prepared with the code, by the developers in order to be added to the package. Instead, break out any settings that are specific to a particular environment into their own config mechanism (e.g. another xml file) and have your deployment tool apply this to the package as it deploys. Keep these files in VCS, but use a separate repository so that revisions to config don't trigger new builds and cause the build number to get falsely inflated.
This way, your environment-specific config files only contain things that change on a per-environment basis, and only if that environment needs something different to the default. Contrary to #gbjbaanb's recommendation, we are planning to do whatever is necessary to keep the package "pure" and the environment-specific config separate, even if it requires custom scripting etc. so I guess we're heading down the path of madness. :-)
For us, Powershell, XML and Web Deploy parameterization will be instrumental.
I'm also planning to be quite aggressive about refactoring the config files so that the same information isn't repeated several times in various places.
Good luck!
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.
Does anyone have any experience using version control with a production website? Would it be a terrible idea to run a website from a repository? I just found a related article but I would like to hear your thoughts/comments.
Makes imho no sense - cheap person's approach.
In larger scenarios you have develop / test / production, so you version control on the develop side, then publish forward to test and production. There is no need to acutally version control once things hit production. You do keep one or two backup versions, for a fast rollback, but otherwise - no need.
Every production manager will tell you the same thing: a (D)VCS has no place in a production environment.
You can maybe have a one "release deployment" server in the production pit, where you do have a VCS allowing you to view the correct delivery, and from that server to copy/rsync it to the right production server.
But on the servers themselves, you only have:
the application itself
monitoring process to follow and report
some diagnostic tools
The reason is that the more elements you have in your release environment, the more possibility you get for one of those elements to go wrong.
Adding a VCS in the mix is not worth it.
The way I've always done it is to have a live & test version be checkouts of the repository. Then my workflow is like this:
make changes on my dev checkout
commit changes.
update test.
make sure everything works
update production.
currently my work-flow is as follows:
Locally on a machine I maintain a git repo on each website I am working on, when the time comes to publish something I compress the folder and upload this single file to the production server via ssh then I decompress, test the changes a move the changes to the live folder and I get rid of the .git folder.
I was wondering if the use of a git repo on the live server was a good idea, seems to be at first but it can be problematic if a change doesn't look the same on on the production server in comparison to the local development machine... this could start a fire...
What about creating a bare repo on some folder on production server then clone from there to the public folder thus pushing updates from local machine to the bare repo and pulling from the bare on the public folder of the production server... may anyone plese provide some feedback.
Later I read about capistrano http://capify.org but I have no experience w/ this software...
In your experience what is the best practice/methodology to accomplish a website deployment/updates?
Thanks in advance and for your feedback.
I don't think that our method can be called best practice, but it has served us well.
We have several large databases for our application (20gb+), so maintaining local copies on each developers computer has never really been an option, and even though we don't develop against the live database, we do need to do the development against a database that is as close to the real thing as possible.
As a consequence we use a central web server as well, and keep a development branch of our subversion trunk on it. Generally we don't work on the same part of the system at once, but when we do need to do that, or someone is making a lot of substantial changes, we branch the trunk and create a new vhost on the dev server.
We also have a checkout of the code on the production servers, so after we're finished testing we simply do a svn update on the production servers. We've implemented a script that executes the update command on all servers using ssh. This is extremely convinient, since our code base is large and takes a lot of time to upload. Subversion will only copy the files that actually have been changed, so it's a lot faster.
This has worked really well for us, and the only thing to watch out for is making changes on the production servers directly (which of course is a no-no from the beginning) since it might cause conflicts when updating.
I never thought about having a repository copy on the server. After reading it, I thought it might be cool... However, updating the files directly in the live environment without testing is not a great idea.
You should always update a secondary environment matching exactly the live one (webserver + DB version, if any) and test there. If everything goes well, then put the live site under maintenance, update files, and go live again.
So I wouldn't make the live site a copy of the repository, but you could do so with the test env. You'll save SSH + compressing time, plus you can check out any specific revision you'd like to test.
Capistrano is great. The default recipes The documentation is spotty, but the mailing list is active, and getting it set up is pretty easy. Are you running Rails? It has some neat built-in stuff for Rails apps, but is also used fairly frequently with other types of webapps.
There's also Webistrano, which is based on Capistrano but has a web front-end. Haven't used it myself. Another deployment system that seems to be gaining some traction, at least among Rails users, is Vlad the Deployer.