We have setup and perfectly running gitlab + gitlab-ci installation. We are now looking how to do cross-project builds. Our project is divided into several repositories and everything is joined during build process via composer.
What I would like to achieve is - when you commit to any of those repositories, they trigger main repository to get built. I was trying to achieve this via webhooks, unfortunately I need a lot of information about commit from the main repository, that I don't have.
Any idea how to do it?
I updated gitlab-ci code a little bit: https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlab-ci/commit/7c7066b0d5a35097a04bb31848d6b622195940ed
I can now call the api.
Related
I have setup a Git project + CI (using Gitlab-runner) on Gitlab v12.3.5. I have a question about issues and pipelines. Let's say I create an issue and assign it to myself. So this create a branch/merge request. Then, I open up the WebIDE to modify some files in an attempt to fix the issue. Now I want to see what if my changes will fix the issue. In order to run the pipeline, is it necessary to commit the changes into the branch or is there some other way?
The scenario I have is that it may take me 20 times to fix the files to make the pipeline 'clean'. In that case, I would have to keep committing on each change to see the results. What is the preferred way to accomplish this? Is it possible to run the pipeline by just staging the changes to see if they work?
I am setting up the gitlab-ci.yaml file. Hence it is taking a lot of trials to get it working properly.
You should create a branch and push to that. Only pushed changes will trigger pipeline runs. After you're done, you can squash and merge the branch so that the repo's history will be clean.
Usually though, you won't have to do this because you'll have automated tests set up to check whether your code works. You should also try testing the Linux commands (or whichever commands you're running in your GitLab CI scripts) locally first. If you're worried about whether your .gitlab-ci.yml syntax is correct, you can navigate to the file in your repository and check there (there's a button at the top which lints it).
I’m trying to set up GitLab CI/CD for an old client-side project that makes use of Grunt (https://github.com/yeoman/generator-angular).
Up to now the deployment worked like this:
run ’$ grunt build’ locally which built the project and created files in a ‘dist’ folder in the root of the project
commit changes
changes pulled onto production server
After creating the .gitlab-ci.yml and making a commit, the GitLab CI/CD job passes but the files in the ‘dist’ folder in the repository are not updated. If I define an artifact, I will get the changed files in the download. However I would prefer the files in ‘dist’ folder in the to be updated so we can carry on with the same workflow which suits us. Is this achievable?
I don't think commiting into your repo inside a pipeline is a good idea. Version control wouldn't be as clear, some people have automatic pipeline trigger when their repo is pushed, that'd trigger a loop of pipelines.
Instead, you might reorganize your environment to use Docker, there are numerous reasons for using Docker in a professional and development environments. To name just a few: that'd enable you to save the freshly built project into a registry and reuse it whenever needed right with the version you require and with the desired /dist inside. So that you can easily run it in multiple places, scale it, manage it etc.
If you changed to Docker you wouldn't actually have to do a thing in order to have the dist persistent, just push the image to the registry after the build is done.
But to actually answer your question:
There is a feature request hanging for a very long time for the same problem you asked about: here. Currently there is no safe and professional way to do it as GitLab members state. Although you can push back changes as one of the GitLab members suggested (Kamil Trzciński):
git push http://gitlab.com/group/project.git HEAD:my-branch
Just put it in your script section inside gitlab-ci file.
There are more hack'y methods presented there, but be sure to acknowledge risks that come with them (pipelines are more error prone and if configured in a wrong way, they might for example publish some confidential information and trigger an infinite pipelines loop to name a few).
I hope you found this useful.
I have enabled Bitbucket Pipelines in one of my node.js repositories to have it run the build on every commit. My repository depends on another node.js repository. For development I've linked the one to the other using npm link.
I've tried a git clone of that repository that is specified in the bitbucket-pipelines.yml file, but the build gets stuck on that command. I guess it's because git is asking for authentication at that point.
Is there a way to allow the container to access other repositories in the same team? Or is there a better way altogether on how to solve this? I'd also be fine with switching to another CI tool if Bitbucket Pipelines aren't capable of this – the only requirement is that it's free for teams < 5 people.
Btw. I'd like to avoid paying for npm private packages if possible.
Thanks!
You can organize access by ssh key for another repo like described in official docs https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucket/access-remote-hosts-via-ssh-847452940.html
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).
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.