So I have an api, webapp and mobile app with each their own repository on Gitlab, each repo has 3 master branches basically:
Production
Beta
Development
Now lets say I create a feature x branch push some changes to it and I think that its ready to be tested internally and push this to the development branch. Feature x gets tested we add some changes to the Feature X that get pushed to the development branch again until satisfied.
Once ready we push it to the Beta environment where we get some feedback from our beta users and based on that we publish it to production.
Problem is that I have to base my feature x branch from one of the main branches which usually is development. Now when I push that feature x branch to the beta branch it creates a bunch of merge problems that has to be solved once solved i am able to merge that feature to beta but the same problem raises again when I push my feature to Production.
So currently I just tried to solve all the merge conflicts, but having to do this every time is quite the hassle.
Any ideas if there is a better way to do this, cause I am not that experienced with proper version control?
Related
We are using gitlab free version along with jenkins for cicd
In our context, 'development' is the public (and protected) branch which is sane at anytime
I tried looking at a few related questions but didnt find. We have a development branch from where users create branches for features and bugfixes (the usual workflow)
Users create MR and link it to a branch they created (say, bugfix-xxxxx)
Once the MR is approved, this will be merged to develop.
So, normal workflow has no problem
However, when a user accidentally pushes from development branch, theis is also getting pushed directly to develop .
What is the best way to prevent such commits (to development branch) which are not approved and not part of any approved MR?
Is it a git admin push pre-hook? any resources to refer to ? any scripts to do achieve this? etc
You can prevent this from happening.
In Settings -> Repository -> Protected branches You should not allow developers to push.
I am using Azure Devops in an IT environment with many different development teams and git repositories. Each development team owns one or more repositories. It's my job to work on various application components contained in said repositories. Because I do not own those repositories, I should not make any changes in build/release pipelines, build policies etc, all by myself because that can impact other people's work.
Now let's say I have a feature branch named UpgradedFeature in the repository FeatureRepository, containing my changes. Said changes also introduce a breaking change in the build pipeline used for that repository for the master branch. Let's say that pipeline is named MasterBuildPipeline.
So in order for my build based on the branch UpgradedFeature to succeed and not impact other people's work, I make a clone of the MasterBuildPipeline, name it UpgradedFeatureBuildPipeline and configure the breaking changes. This new build pipeline is used exclusively by me for the UpgradedFeature branch only.
The build, now using the new UpgradedFeatureBuildPipeline pipeline succeeds and now I want to merge into master , so I make a pull request to merge the changes contained in UpgradedFeature into master. The master branch has a branch policy in place named MasterBranchPolicy like described on https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/repos/git/branch-policies?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser. This branch policy contains the MasterBuildPipeline and prevents completion of that pull request when the build using that pipeline does not succeed.
So my problem is that my pull request triggers the MasterBranchPolicy containing the MasterBuildPipeline and not the UpgradedFeatureBuildPipeline containing the necessary breaking changes for the build to succeed. So the build fails and I cannot complete the pull request.
Of course I could edit the MasterBuildPipeline for a short time, introduce my breaking changes, run the build, then discard the breaking changes again. But there's a chance I may impact other people's work with that and somehow I have a feeling that's not the right approach. I could also edit or disable the MasterBranchPolicy for a short time but again, I may impact other people's work and I feel it's not the right approach.
How should I do this?
So the build fails and I cannot complete the pull request.
To complete the pull request even through the build fails, you could grant yourself Bypass permissions. Bypass permissions let you complete pull requests that don't satisfy branch policies. You can grant bypass permissions to yourself then complete the pull request. Here is Bypass branch policies for reference.
Please navigate to Project setting >> Repositories >> The repo >> Security >> user (yourself) >> Bypass policies when completing pull requests.
Then, you can Override branch policies and enable merge even the MasterBuildPipeline faild.
Please also note that use caution when granting the ability to bypass policies, especially at the repo and project levels. Policies are a cornerstone of secure and compliant source code management. In your scenario, it's suggested to edit the MasterBuildPipeline and the MasterBranchPolicy or disable the MasterBranchPolicy as you mentioned.
Generally, workflow of DevOps Branching Strategy as follows
Developer will create a feature or bugfix branch out of develop. One feature or bugfix branch usually stands for one JIRA bug or feature item. These branches are personal
The changes will be pushed into the developer's feature or bugfix branch.
When the new feature or bugfix is complete.A developer will create a pull request. Pull requests open a code review phase.
Once a pull request has been approved, the team lead or development team will move it into development.
When the development branch has all the epics and bug fixes, i.e., the content planned for the next release, the development team or team lead will create a release branch. This initiates the release regression testing phase.At this stage, only bug fixes are accepted for release, and the workflow is similar to that of the development branch.
Having a separate release branch will enable future development towards the next release in the development branch. Features for the next release are not included in this release. However, bug fixes for this release will be incorporated into the development of the next release as well.
When release content meets the criteria, the release branch will be frozen, which means that it ends. Content from releases will be merged to master and tagged there. For the next release, a new release branch is created when needed.
As per my experience, I would suggest creating branching policies like
A pull request is requested to merge the develop, release, and master branches.
Pull request approvers should be leads.
All developers can create feature branches.
All developers can push to hotfix and feature branches. Commit messages must include the JIRA issue id.
We have two developers using the same ADF. Each developer creates a git branch and starts working on it. Each developer can save the changes to their own git branch but there can only be one collaboration branch and this branch decides the publishing branch. This is causing a blockade (for one of the developer. How can we solve this ?
ADF publish branch can be set using a publish_config.json but now there is an option to set this in the adf itself. which one takes precedence? What is the best practice here?
You need to manage the work of each developer with standard git branch/merge processes. When one dev is done with work in their feature branch, then they will create a pull request to merge changes into your collaboration branch.
If the second dev has not created a feature branch yet, they can just do so after the pull request from the first dev is complete and then continue work from there. If the second dev has already created a feature branch, then they will need to merge the new changes from the collaboration branch into their feature branch to continue work before later committing to git and creating a pull request to merge changes from their feature branch back into the collaboration branch. From there, you can publish as needed.
This git work can be done through the ADF editor as well as through any other git interface you have. It's up to you.
This article discusses the process in specific detail using the ADF editor.
EDIT:
I believe you now have answers for this from 3 of the other 5 questions you posted about this same topic in the past day.
ADF publish confusion in git mode
Azure data factory working-branch confusion
When ADF publish branch is git protected how to publish?
Here is another article which describes the fundamental git process for ADF to help bring you up to speed with the fundamentals of how the different branches work, and how you can switch publish branches on the fly if needed.
So our company is using Gitflow. Can't currently change that. I have looked into github-flow and gitlab-flow, but we can't currently move to a different model.
When finishing a hotfix or release branch, right now we don't use merge requests, but manually use gitflow to locally merge the branches into master/dev/release.
Is there a supposed way of finishing a branch using merge requests in Gitlab? We'd like to go protect the master and dev branches from pushes. It's just safer to let gitlab handle the actual merging.
I'd've opened an issue on gitlab directly, but I'm not actually sure where.
Edit: I also thought about making two Merge Requests in Gitlab, but that can't be the way either.
We're using GitLab for our project and we think it's great.
We're also using git flow to manage the changes in feature, develop, master branches.
Can you use the Merge Request build in GitLab to manage the branches in git flow style?
Meaning when accepting a Merge Request for a release branch, it will merge the release branch into master AND into develop..
Or should we always use git flow on our local machines to accept the Merge Requests.
Like this issue 1628 illustrates, it is best to use GitLab to publish (push) branches, then to rely on a specific GitLab feature related to a particular workflow like git-flow.
So the natural approach is to limit those git-flow features to the local clones, and push any branch you want to GitLab once the merge request is resolved.
By now, there is something called GitLab Flow, "a clearly defined set of best practices".
Cited from the linked source:
It combines feature-driven development and feature branches with issue
tracking.