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.
Related
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.
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.
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'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.
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.