I'm using Visual Studio Online, and looking at CI and automated deploys
My Web Test Project has three branches: DEV,UAT,LIVE
I have a build Definition that builds from the DEV branch and uses msbuild to deploy the Website to my UAT server, this works fine. What I would like to do is after the publish, branch the code from DEV to UAT
any help would be appreciated
You can use PowerShell post test to call "tf merge" to push code from DEV to UAT.
You are doing it the wrong way round. If you are promoting by quality that is a value of the build output and not the code.
A better way would be to not have branch by quality (dev->qa) but to have branch by release (1.0->2.0). Then have a single build on a version that progress through DEV->QA. This is the recommended method of controlling quality and minimises risk. The release management tools that are part of TFS and VSO use this method.
http://nakedalm.com/create-release-management-pipeline-professional-developers/
If you want to increase and control quality you will need to move away from branch by quality. It is not possible to achieve continuous delivery of any form with it.
Related
I am working for a company that develops a lot of apps and we use Azure devops portal for all of our pipeline releases etc.
So, the general flow is that a developer will create a branch to do the development on and change the code on that branch. They would like to deploy that branch before it is merged back into the development line from a pipeline, rather than from visual studio, which they currently do. So, it's about giving the developer to the option to choose which branch to deploy from.
Has anyone done something similar or point me in the right direction to how I could go about this?
When creating the release, currently there is no build-in feature to choose which branch to deploy from, the release pipeline works with the corresponding source Artifacts configuration.
A good approach for your scenario is referring to the build id on your build pipeline (instead of release pipeline).
When running the build pipeline, you could choose the target branch and record the build id for this run.
In your release pipeline, you could check whether the source Artifacts is from your target branch by checking the build id.
I have a VSTS project and I'm setting up CI/CD at the moment. All fine, but I seem to have 2 options for the publishing step:
Option 1: it's a task as part of the CI Build, e.g. see build step 3 here:
https://medium.com/#flu.lund/setting-up-a-ci-pipeline-for-deploying-your-angular-application-to-azure-using-visual-studio-team-f686c8f190cf
Option 2: The build phase produces artifacts, and as part of a separate release phase these artifacts are published, see here:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/vsts/build-release/actions/ci-cd-part-1?view=vsts
Both options seem well supported in the MS documentation, is one of these options better than the other? Or is it a case of pros & cons for each and it depends on circumstances, etc?
Thanks!
You should definitely use "Option 2". Your build should not make changes in your environments whatsoever, that is strictly what a "release" is. That link you have under "Option 1" is the wrong way to do it, a build should be just that, compiling code and making artifacts, not actually deploying code.
When you mesh build/releases together, you make it very difficult to debug build issues. Since your code is always being released, you really have to disable the "deploy" step to get any idea of what was built before you deployed.
Also, the nice thing about creating an artifact is you have a deployable package, and if in the future you need to rollback to a previous working version, you have that ready to go. Using the "build only" strategy, you'd have to revert your code or make unnecessary backups to achieve this.
I think you'll find any new Microsoft documentation pointing you toward this approach, and VSTS is completely set up like this. Even the "Configure Continuous Delivery in Azure..." feature in Visual Studio 2017 will create a build and a release.
Almost all build tasks are the same as release tasks, so you can deploy the app after building the project in build process.
Also there are many differences between release and build, for example, many environments, deployment group phase in release.
So which way is better is per to your detail requirement, for example, if build > deploy > other process is simple, you can do it just in build.
Regarding Publish artifact task, it is used to publish the files to VSTS server or other place (e.g. shared folder), which can be used in release as Artifact (Click Add artifact > Build in release definition), you also can download them for troubleshooting, for example, if you are using Hosted Agent that you can’t access, but you want to get some files (e.g. build result), you can add publish artifact task to publish to VSTS server, then download them (Open build result > Artifacts)
We have currently released our code to Production, and as a result have cut and branched to ensure we can support our current release, whilst still supporting hot-fixes without breaking the current release from any on-going development.
Here is our current structure:
Project-
/Development
/RC1
Until recently using Octopus we have had the following process:
Dev->Staging/Dev Test->UAT
Which works fine as we didn't have an actual release.
My question is how can Octopus support our new way of working?
Do we create a new/clone project in Octopus named RC1 and have CI from our RC1 branch into that? Then add/remove as appropriate as this RC's are no longer required?
Or is there another method that we've clearly missed out on?
It seems that most organisations that are striving for continuous something end up with a CI server and continuous deployment up to some manual sign off environment and then require continuous delivery to production. This generally leads to a branching strategy in order to isolate the release candidate to allow hot fixing.
I think a question like this raises more points for discussion, before trying to provide a one size fits all answer IMHO.
The kind of things that spring to mind are:
Do you have "source code" dependencies or binary ones for any shared components.
What level of integration / automated regression testing do you have.
Is your deployment orchestrated by TFS, or driven by a user in Octopus.
Is there a database as part of the application that needs consideration.
How is your application version numbering controlled.
What is your release cycle.
In the past where I've encountered this scenario, I would look towards a code promotion branching strategy which provides you with one branch to maintain in production - This has worked well where continuous deployment to production is not an option. You can find more branching strategies discussed on the ALM Rangers page on CodePlex
Developers / Testers can continually push code / features / bug fixes through staging / uat. At the point of release the Dev branch is merged to Release branch, which causes a release build and creates a nuget package. This should still be released to Octopus in exactly the same way, only it's a brand new release and not a promotion of a previous release. This would need to ensure that there is no clash on version numbering and so a strategy might be to have a difference in the major number - This would depend on your current setup. This does however, take an opinionated view that the deployment is orchestrated by the build server rather than Octopus Deploy. Primarily TeamCity / TFS calls out to the Ocotpus API, rather than a user choosing the build number in Octopus (we have been known to make mistakes)
ocoto.exe create-release --version GENERATED_BY_BUILD_SERVER
To me, the biggest question I ask clients is "What's the constraint that means you can't continuously deploy to production". Address that constraint (see theory of constraints) and you remove the need to work round an issue that needn't be there in the first place (not always that straight forward I know)
I would strongly advise that you don't clone projects in Octopus for different environments as it's counter intuitive. At the end of the day you're just telling Octopus to go and get this nuget package version for this app, and deploy it to this environment please. If you want to get the package from a different NuGet feed for release, then you could always make use of the custom binding on the NuGet field in Octopus and drive that by a scoped variable depending on the environment you're deploying to.
Step 1 - Setup two feeds
Step 2 - Scope some variables for those feeds
Step 3 - Consume the feed using a custom expression
I hope this helps
This is unfortunately something Octopus doesn't directly have - true support for branching (yet). It's on their roadmap for 3.1 under better branching support. They have been talking about this problem for some time now.
One idea that you mentioned would be to clone your project for each branch. You can do this under the "Settings" tab (on the right-hand side) in your project that you want to clone. This will allow you to duplicate your project and simply rename it to one of your branches - so one PreRelease or Release Candidate project and other is your mainline Dev (I would keep the same name of the project). I'm assuming you have everything in the same project group.
Alternatively you could just change your NuSpec files in your projects in different branches so that you could clearly see what's being deployed at the overview project page or on the dashboard. So for your RC branch, you could just add the suffix -release within the NuSpec in your RC branch which is legal (rules on Semantic Versioning talk about prereleases at rule #9). This way, you can use the same project but have different packages to deploy. If your targeted servers are the same, then this may be the "lighter" or simpler approach compared to cloning.
I blogged about how we do this here:
http://www.alexjamesbrown.com/blog/development/working-branch-deployments-tfs-octopus/
It's a bit of a hack, but in summary:
Create branch in TFS Create branch specific build definition
Create branch specific drop location for Octopack
Create branch specific Octopus Deployment Project (by cloning your ‘main’ deployment
Edit the newly cloned deployment, re-point the nuget feed location to your
branch specific output location, created in step 3
I am currently thinking of a way to nicely structure my web project with mercurial. I was thinking of having two branches default (for development & testing) and release (the finished code which gets published). I would develop and test on the default branch until I have a stable application running. Then I would merge into the release branch. When I push the code to my central repository (on the server where my web application lives) I would want the code to be automatically published.
Is this the right way to go and if yes can this automatic publishing of the release branch be achieved with hooks?
Have you considered the git-flow branching model? I would recommend it and also hgflow by yujiewu. The latter is an implementation of the git-flow idea for mercurial.
Instead of a "release" branch, you should name it 'stable' as several projects do.
Do you use Continuous integration yet? Maybe, you should. In Jenkins, you could create a post-build step to publish the release if everything went well. It's better than a changegroup hook.
Im pretty new to CI so bear with me here. I have just setup an instance of Team City in on a local machine, and I can clearly see the benefits.
The one thing we do want understand is how we can managed the deployment aspect of CI. What we really want to achieve are two builds:
1) We check in to our source repository and the CI server notices the change and compiles the code, tests etc.
2) We manually trigger a build that compiles the code, copies the code to a remote server and update its IIS mappings.
Now the first build is pretty much wrapped up with TeamCity. But I assume that the deployment aspect of this is going to involve some scripting (Nant, MsBuild, Rake etc) is this correct?
If this is the case, I can see that transferring files from the build machine to a remote server will be ok, but will we be able to update IIS mappings without being on the same network? For that matter where is THE correct place to deploy a CI server, should is live on the same network as the apps we deploy?
Finally, we have been (rather unorthadoxily) using IronRuby to run rake scripts as our build runner. This is simply because we like Rake, but if we were to look at Nant/Msbuild do they have any baked in tasks that would simplify what we are trying to achieve?
Cheers, Chris.
We use MSBuild exclusively, just a choice. I am sure Nant and the others do things just as well. We only publish to a dev environment (for dev testing) and a stage environment (Where QA actually tests). I would not suggest that you put the production system push on this as the temptation to force builds might be too great for some people.
We use some of the MSBuild Community Tasks