I have a NSIS installer that we previously built using nAnt scripts that copy some files around and run makensis.exe via a exec task to build the installer exe. After the nant script completes, I have the compelte structure for our CD and also our download.
I was just doing a get from sourcesafe onto an unused desktop and using it as a build box, compiling there. Sometimes we would have a couple of files checked in that fix something critical. In those cases I would go to the build box, and very selectively get only those files, to avoid getting other changed files that we aren't ready to release yet. Basically I am able to allow development to continue and selectively include certain changed files into the installer for release.
Now we no longer have a free box, and need to build from our server. So I am setting up CI Factory so that the developer can kick the build off without remoting into the server. The one issue I am struggling with, is the best way to continue to allow this selective change control to occur. The default concept of CI that CI Factory implements is fine for internal development "head". However, I also want to setup a CCNet project that is run only on demand via a Force Build for this "public release" type of build.
This is what I've brain stormed so far, without being sure how well this will work, if at all(still figuring out what CCNet and CI Factory are all about). The "public release" CCNet project config/build would be setup such that it would not get latest. Modifications would not trigger a build. Since the other CCNet project that is using the default CI methodology(we'll call it the "CI project") of getting latest when changes are detected, then these two projects can't share the same working directory. So the "public release" would need a different working copy, so that its files won't get updated when the CI project's build is triggered. The developer would need to remote into the server, one VSS, selectively do a get into the "public release"'s working copy, and then force a build through CI Factory.
The disadvantage's I see with this is
1) Having to remote in to selectively do gets.
2) I have no idea how to allow a single CI Factory project to have two different working copies of the Product folder, so that each project configuration block has it's own.
3) I'm afraid of what kind of strangeness this might cause. I'm not quite sure yet how to specify a source control block in CCNet project config block, but prevent it from doing a get latest when it builds. I'm still gradually figuring out what things are in scripts and can be easily taken out without breaking other things, versus what is not meant to be mucked around with and/or is not configurable.
I would really like to hear about how others deal with this issue of selectively releasing changes, if you have a similar situation. I am constrained to VSS, so my immediate need is to solve this with that in mind, but at the same time I'd be interested in hearing how you manage this with other source control systems. I guess you would probably have a branch that is your latest developments branch, and then merge changes into the trunk whenever you want to release them? I really don't trust VSS for branching/merging, and I think the branching concepts might be a little too much overhead and learning curve for this shop. Like I said though, stories with other source control systems would be useful future knowledge for me.
Thanks in advance.
You need a branching structure in your repository to facilitate this. Something like the release branch method. Only select individuals can commit to this branch (or have a release/stable for that). Set up your manual CI launches to pull from the release branch as release nightly promote to milestone or final from there. I don't like the idea of manually modifying things on your build machine. Set up the changes in version control, in a safe place to prepare your release and let CI build from there, but manually triggered.
Check out these branching patterns. I suggested C3, codeline-per-release, often called release branching.
Heres an article on VSS branching that includes a link to merging.
This question looks similar.
Maybe you could move to another source control system with better support for this kind of thing. Any suggestions from MS people out there?
Related
I have been researching and am trying to figure out the best branching and deployment strategy to accomplish the requirements below. Maybe I’m missing something but it is more complicated than it seems. Ideally, we’d just have one permanent branch, ‘master’, that could have specific commits tagged to mark releases to production.
Our current strategy is based on Git Flow and has permanent branches ‘master’ (only has releases to production) and ‘develop’. The primary thing that complicates using a multiple permanent-branches model is the concept of “promoting” the same build from the staging environment to production. Currently, this needs to be done in a separate source code branch (deployments to staging come from ‘develop’, deployments to prod come from ‘master’).
Tools: Git (VSTS), TeamCity, Octopus Deploy
Requirements (feature and hotfix lifecycles):
All code is reviewed via pull requests (enforced via branch policies)
All code gets deployed to a staging environment for testing
We can quickly go back to any snapshot of code that was deployed previously
If testing is successful, then the same build can be “promoted” from our staging environment to production (no need to build again)
Features accumulate over time before pushing out to production as a single release. Hotfixes have to be able to go through without getting caught up in the "all or nothing" next regular release.
I like the idea of having one permanent branch with tags (re: The master/develop split is redundant, http://endoflineblog.com/gitflow-considered-harmful), but having additional permanent branches may better facilitate deploying to different lifecycles/versions (feature and hotfix) to Octopus.
I have been wrestling with how best to pull this off and I may be over complicating things. Any feedback is appreciated.
It seems you have a number of questions and they are quite broad... I'll add some comments to each of your requirements as a conversation starter, but this whole thread might get blocked by moderators as it is definitely not the style of questions SO was made for.
All code is reviewed via pull requests (enforced via branch policies)
I haven't looked at VSTS for ages, but I'd expect they already support branch policies and pull-requests, so not sure if there's anything you need here other than configure settings in your repositories.
In case VSTS does not support that, you might consider moving to a tool that does e.g. BitBucket, GitHub, etc. Both of these have an on-premises version in case you can't (or don't want to) use the cloud hosted version.
All code gets deployed to a staging environment for testing
You achieve that with setting up lifecycles in Octopus Deploy, to make sure deployments/promotions follow the the sequence you want.
We can quickly go back to any snapshot of code that was deployed previously
You already have source control, so all you need now is traceability from the code that is deployed in an environment, to the deployment version in Octopus Deploy, the build job in TeamCity, the branch and exact commit in your source control.
There's a few things that you can do, to achieve that:
Define a versioning scheme that works for you. I like to use semantic versioning. "Major" and "Minor" versions are defined by the developers, and the "Patch" is the auto-incremented number from TeamCity (%build.number%). Every git push build the code and generates a unique build version (%major%.%minor%.%build.number%)
As part of the build steps in TeamCity, before you compile the code, make sure your source files are patched with the version number assigned by each build, the commit hash from your source control, and the branch name. e.g. if you are using .NET, make sure all the AssemblyInfo.cs files are updated with that version, so that the version is embedded in the binaries. This allows anyone to query the version looking at the properties of the binary files, and also allows you to display the app version on the app itself (e.g. status bar, footer, caption, about box, etc.)
Have TeamCity tag your source control with the version number of every build, so you can quickly see on your source control history. You probably only want to do that for the master branch, though which is what you care about.
Have Octopus tag your source control with the deployment version number and the environment name, so that you can quickly see (from your source control) what got deployed where.
Steps 1 and 2 are the most important ones, really. 3 and 4 are just nice-to-have. Most of the time you'll just open the app in the environment, check the commit hash in the "About", and do a git checkout to that commit hash...
If testing is successful, then the same build can be "promoted" from our staging environment to production (no need to build again)
Again, Octopus Deploy lifecycles, and make sure anything different in each environment is defined in the configuration file of the application, which is updated during the Octopus deployment, using environment-specific variables.
In terms of branch workflow, this last requirement makes it mandatory to merge changes into master (or whatever your "production" branch is) before the deployment lifecycle can begin.
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!
My company recently started getting up to date on the usage of TFS, source control, and branching strategies. Our current branching strategy is the basic 'Dev > Main > Release' method, which works well for our small team. However, the issue lies with our automated tests. All of our integration tests and UI tests are written in C# and executed in a nightly build process. In effort to keep source clean and well kept, where exactly should we place the automated test code?
You could place the automated tests inside of each branch. Your automated tests can be merged and treated just like regular code since it will be changing for new development.
The other option could be for you to place it where your projects build-types and build files reside.
It is important to make sure it is checked into source control.
I am trying to setup a internal Mercurial HgWeb server on a Windows 2003 server. The Hgweb part is working. I could just share a folder to put released binary files for each projects. But I am wandering could I still somehow link the version control system with binary build output. So when there is a commit, the build output will automated get update as well for a release?
I know I could have a build system on the server end. But for Delphi, C#, ASP.NET projects and with a few third-party libraries, it seems much more work.
Right now, I am thinking about for each project I will have two repository, one for development (not output binary), the other for release which will including everything including the build result binaries (or only build result including dependency will be a better idea?). But I don't know yet how to make those two synchronize automatically without manually commit twice.
Maybe simply a hook on Dev repository fires every time commit to Master branch which will make another commit to the Release branch?
You really need a build system like CruiseControl.NET to build your binaries after pushes happen to a remote repository that CC.NET is watching. The binaries built can then just be copied to a standard Web server to be served up for download. CC.NET is not complicated to configure and supports Mercurial out-of-the-box. Using a system like this, you can get the extras like build stats, run unit tests before pushing a build to be downloaded, and lots more.
Tipically a deploy in production does not involve just a mere source code update (build) but requires a lot of other important tasks like, for example:
Db scripts
Configuration files (differents from test\production)
Batch to schedule
Executables to move to the correct path
Etc. etc.
In our company we just send an email to a "Release email address" describing the tasks in order, which changeset need to be published (TFS), which SP need to be updated, db scripts and so on.
I believe there's not a magic tool that does these tasks automagically in order, rollback included; but probably there's something better than email that helps to keep track of releases in production.
Do you have any tools to suggest or practices to share?
When multiple tasks are required to support a full project deployment (and that's frequently the case, in my experience), I'd suggest using a build/deployment tool. I've used Ant in the past with great success, but know others who swear by Capistrano, Maven and others.
Using Ant, I wrote a script that would:
Pull the specific revision I wanted from my VCS
Create a tarball of the target directory on the remote machine (in case a rollback was required)
Create a MySQL dump file of the database (also for rollback purposes)
Delete the remote directory and SSH the new content just pulled from the VCS
Perform various other logistical operations (setting file perms, ownership, etc.)
Create a release branch on the VCS itself
Create a tag with the appropriate version information so I always had a snapshot of the code base at that moment of deployment.
Hope that helps some. I've written a few blog posts about this that may (or may not) be useful. They're dated now, but the general information should still be solid enough.
Introductory thoughts
Details of how I use Ant for deploying--including scripts
You might be interested in the Team Foundation Build Recipes Website, that showcases some build scripts developed using SDC Tasks Library and the MSBuildTasks library
How about something like SVN? You can put all of your code in a repository, then when you are ready to release from production bring your stuff over from test. Then you'll have very specific revisions with information on what happened. SVN keeps track of all of it.