In some of our projects, we are moving away from 'master' branch to 'main' branch. I noticed in our project, we have a role called 'master', and I wanted to know how/if I can change it.
I see in the gitlab documentation that they no longer have a role called 'master', but it looks like it's equivalent is 'maintainer'. However, from within our gitlab organization help pages (from clicking 'Help' under my avatar at the top left), the role is referred to as 'Master'.
Can I change the role within our project? Or does that have to be done at the organization level?
Permissions and roles are statically defined in GitLab, as illustrated for instance by commit a63bce1, which did rename the Master role to Maintainer.
So unless you are modifying the sources from GitLab itself, or upgrading your on-premise GitLab to 13.x (since the change came during the 12.x releases serie), you would still see master instead of maintainer.
Related
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.
A GitHub repository was copied to GitLab. Next, the development was happening simultaneously on GitHub and GitLab over a few months. Then, the GitHub repository was finally moved to GitLab.
Is there a way to assign the first GitLab repository to be the fork of the newly moved repository (which is the parent of the first one)? So that the "fork" indicator is active as on the picture: fork indicator.
You're asking how to add a forked relation between existing repositories. GitLab provides an API to do this: Create a forked from/to relation between existing projects
POST /projects/:id/fork/:forked_from_id
Attribute
Type
Required
Description
forked_from_id
ID
☑ Yes
The ID of the project that was forked from.
id
integer/string
☑ Yes
The ID or URL-encoded path of the project.
I downloaded and started authoring environment (crafter-cms-authoring.zip)
Created site backed by remote git repo as described in: Create site based on a blueprint then push to remote bare git repository
Created a content type, new page.
Published everything
Now, I would expect, that I can see my changes in the remote repo. But all I can see are the initial commits from the 2. step above. No new content type, no new page, no branch "live". (The content items are however visible in the local repo)
What is missing?
Edit:
Since Creafter can by set up in many ways, in order to clarify my deployment scenario, I am adding deployment diagram + short description.
There are 3 hosts - one for each environment + shared git repo.
Authoring
This is where studio is located and content authors make changes. Each change is saved to the sandbox local git repository. When a content is published, the changes are pulled to the published local git repository. These two local repos are not accessible from other hosts.
Delivery
This is what provides published content to the end user/application.
Deployer is responsible for getting new publications to the delivery instance. It does so by polling (periodically pulling from) specific git repository. When it pulls new changes, it updates the local git repository site, and Solr indexes.
Gitlab
This hosts git repository site. It is accessible from both - Authoring and Delivery hosts. After its creation, the new site is pushed to this repo. The repo is also polled for new changes by Deployers of Delivery instances.
In order for this setup to work, the published changes must somehow end up in Gitlab's site repo, but they do not (the red communication path from Authoring Deployer to the Gitlab's site)
Solution based on #summerz answer
I implemented GitPushProcessor and configured new deployment target in authoring Deployer, adding mysite-live.yaml to /opt/crafter-cms-authoring/data/deployer/target/:
target:
env: live
siteName: codelists
engineUrl: http://localhost:9080
localRepoPath: /opt/crafter-cms-authoring/data/repos/sites/mysite/published
deployment:
pipeline:
- processorName: gitPushProcessor
remoteRepo:
url: ssh://path/to/gitlab/site/mysite
I think you might have confused push with publish.
On Publishing
Authoring (Studio) publishes to Delivery (Engine) after an approval workflow that makes content go live. Authoring is where content (and code if you like) is managed and previewed safely, then that is published to the live delivery nodes for delivery to the end-user.
On DevOps
A site's local git repository can be pushed/pulled to/from remote repositories. This means:
Code can flow from a developer's workstation to Studio (via a github, gitlab, bitbucket etc.) <== this is code moving forward (and can flow via environments like QA, Load Testing, etc.)
Content can flow back, from Studio to the developer's local workstation in a similar manner <== this is content moving backward (you can have production content on your laptop if you want)
When code flows forward from a developer to Studio, that's when Studio pulls from the remote git repo.
When content flows backward from Studio to the developer, that's when Studio pushes to the remote git repo.
Documentation
A good bird's eye view of the architecture of the system relating to publishing can be found here: http://docs.craftercms.org/en/3.0/developers/architecture.html
A good article that explains the DevOps workflow/Git stuff is here: http://docs.craftercms.org/en/3.0/developers/developer-workflow.html
Update based on the expanded question
My new understanding based on your question is: You can't allow the deployers in Delivery to access Authoring's published repo to poll due to some constraint (even over SSH and even with limits on the source IP). You'd like to use GitLab as a form of content depot that's accessible as a push from Authoring and pull from Delivery.
If my understanding is correct, I can think of two immediate solutions.
Set up a cron job in authoring to push to GitLab periodically.
You'll need to add GitLab as a remote repo in published and then set up a cron like this:
* * * * * git --git-dir /opt/crafter/data/repos/sites/{YOUR_SITE}/published/.git push 2>&1
Test it out by hand first, then cron it.
Write a deployer processor that can push content out to an end-point upon a change or, wait for the ticket: https://github.com/craftercms/craftercms/issues/2017.
Once this is built, you'll need to configure another deployer in Authoring that will push to GitLab.
In either case, beware not to update things in GitLab since you're using published and not sandbox. (See DevOps notes above to learn why.)
I started exploring Gitlab for version control management and I got an issue at the first step itsself. When ever I create a project its creating a new repository. I have few webapplications which are independent to each other. In that case do I need to use different repository for every project.
What I am looking for is what is what and when to use what but not able to find what is repository and what is project in gitlab website as well as through other sources as well.
Also I came across a term submodule, when can it be used. Can I create one global project and have all the webapplications as different submodules.
Can any one please help me in understanding the difference between those 3 and when to use what based on their intended way of usage. Also please help me by pointing to a good learning site where I can get the information of doing basic version control operations in gitlab.
Thanks.
Gitlab manages projects: a project has many features in addition of the Git repo it includes:
issues: powerful, but lightweight issue tracking system.
merge requests: you can review and discuss code before it is merged in the branch of your code.
wiki: separate system for documentation, built right into GitLab
snippets: Snippets are little bits of code or text.
So fear each repo you create, you get additional features in its associated project.
And you can manage users associated to that project.
See GitLab documentation for more.
The Git repo and Git submodule are pure Git notions.
In your case, a submodule might not be needed, unless you want a convenient way to remember the exact versions of different webapp repo, recorded in one parent repo.
But if that is the case, then yes, you can create one global project and have all the webapplications as different submodules.
Each of those submodules would have their own GitLab project (and Git repo).
Is there a way in gitlab to disable a project from showing up as a project if the user only has guest level privileges?
To clarify and add a little more detail.
I have added the ability for guest to download code but removed pretty much every privellege regarding actually using gitlab to look at the project. Which means that if the project shows up as a project to the user and they click on it gitlab returns an error. I would much rather gitlab not show the project at if the user has guest level access.
We use git submodules in our projects and we need to be able to give people the ability to clone a repo and all it submodules without giving everyone access to browse and find every project that can be a submodule or making projects public.
Currently not. But feel fee to create a PR which add's this functionality