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.)
Related
When working with the regular source code, (Java, C++, etc..) there are things like
git pull ..
git fetch ..
git push ..
to synch your remote git repo branch with your local branch.
What is the equivalent of such in the Azure Data Factory world ?
So, I am using azure data factory with the Azure git repo.
I am working in the particular feature branch - "fefature branch"
And my pipeline has a copy activity that hits a data set in its "Sink" stage.
Here is a screen shot but .. it's pretty simple and seems right
I see that my code for Data set definition (Json) in the remote Git repository is different from what I see in the Azure portal gui (being pointed to that same remote branch). ADF Gui in the Azure Portal is correct, the one in the git repo contains some stuff that I already deleted, but it does not gets deleted there (Why??)
So, when I 'Debug' pipeline I get errors which indicate this discrepancy as a problem. I want ty sync the environments and .. given that I do not understand how the discrepancies came about, I don't know how to fix an issue?. Any help is appreciated.
In the ADF world, we use publish and create a new pull request to merge the new changes from a feature branch to the main branch.
it seems like your git repository version is not up to date with the live ADF.
If there are any pending changes in your main branch, then you can click on Publish button to merge the changes
And if you are working on the feature branches, you can merge the changes using the new pull request.
If you have multiple feature branches, then you will need to manually compare the different versions to resolve these conflicts.
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.
My requirement is whenever developer try to do check-in existing GitLab repository then before doing check-in in repository,build should trigger (Jenkins build) and Junit test case should run on new check-in and if passes then it should go forward and will allow developer to do check-in in main repository.
I am not sure but is pre-hook commit can achieve this requirement?
While you could achieve this with pre-commit hooks, it's more common to do so with post-commit hooks on the server-side.
You can achieve this by operating a branch based workflow, there are multiple to choose from - I would recommend reading through this guidance by Atlassian.
Developers will create branches from a 'main' branch (often master, but can be a 'dev' branch working towards a release for instance), then develop code on that branch. They will then push their branch and commits to the remote repository (GitLab). When ready to merge into the main branch, your developers can open a merge request onto the main branch.
On GitLab you can setup a webhook to trigger Jenkins builds when a push event occurs. I would recommend this guide to guide you through it.
In the GitLab project settings you can require a passing build before merge requests are allowed to merge.
Furthermore, your understanding of Git seems incorrect - check in is not a term used in Git. Please take a look at the Git documentation. In Git a developer creates commits against a local copy of the repository, then pushes these to a remote repository (GitLab/GitHub etc.). There is no direct equivalent of the 'check in' used in various centralised version control systems e.g. SVN.
At the moment we have a local server as our SVN server, using Subversion Edge 3.1.0, where users push their commits and is used as the main repository. Recently this has been giving us some problems, the server tends to switch off or encounter problems, which then the server needed to be restarted.
Since we also have some people offshore working on the same repository we decided it's best to have an Azure VM set-up, this will act as a backup server and also have the repository updated with each commit (like Dropbox, File Sync, etc.).
My questions are,
Have anyone actually managed to setup an environment similar to this?
How do the commits work? When someone pushes to the cloud repository
and someone then pushes on the local repository.
Have anyone actually managed to setup an environment similar to this?
As long as you have the networking configured such that users can reach this Azure VM via HTTP (preferably HTTPS), it should be no different from hosting a repository on your company network.
How do the commits work? When someone pushes to the cloud repository and someone then pushes on the local repository.
Subversion has no notion of a "cloud repository" vs. a "local repository" because it's a centralized VCS - there is only one repository, ever.
Users would simply commit to your Azure-hosted repository instead of the on-premises one. The commits work exactly the same.
this will act as a backup server and also have the repository updated with each commit
Subversion on its own is not a backup! You must take regular backups of your repository and keep them in a location that is separate from the repository server to truly keep your repository data safe.
Your repository will always be "updated with each commit" because that's how Subversion works in the first place. Assuming your developers are committing code regularly, that is.
It is ok to push to gitlab repositories directly, from outside gitlab?
Mainly what I would like to know is:
* would gitlab detect changes?
* is is safe, as in if it will not break repos due to concurrency?
If I understand your question correctly you're asking whether it is possible to push commits from another git client than Gitlab to a Gitlab instance.
There's no problem at all concerning this, actually this is exactly what git and Gitlab is about.
It doesn't matter at all which Git client you use to get your commits done and pushed to the server running Gitlab. Think of Gitlab as just one possible frontend to your repositories.
If you are interested in the technical background:
Git is completely file-based and doesn't rely on any kind of central server managing your repositories. All relevant data is stored in the .git subdirectory of your project. This enables the use of multiple clients with a single repository - for example git and Gitlab.
Gitlab internally uses the gem gitlab_git which itself uses the library rugged that provides Ruby bindings for libgit2. That library is also used in the implementation of other git clients, "including the GitHub.com site, in Plastic SCM and also powering Microsoft's Visual Studio tools for Git".
Regarding the handling of actual concurrency problems, have a look at this answer by kan. Correct permissions are handled via git hooks as was kindly pointed towards in this comment below by Ciro Santilli.