We are moving our build and testing system to Jenkins, and are looking for an easy way (where we don't have to code all the logic ourselves) to manage the build artifacts.
Basically we need an organised way to store them in order by the type of the build, the user who built it and such for example:
johnd/nightly/r543241/win32/program.zip
johnd/nightly/trunk/lin64/program.tar.gz
master/release/2.1/win32/program.zip
This way we can upload when a build is complete, and retrieve the required artifact in the testing stage with ease.
Until now we simply stored the files in directories on NFS, but recently started considering an artifact manager. I've looked at Artifcatory, Archiva and Nexus. But all seem very Java centered or at least required maven to work with. Since I don't want to introduce more complexity (We mainly work with python, scons is our build tool) and I don't want to introduce maven to the mix, I'm looking for something that has an easy command line (or better REST/Python interface) to upload, download, manage artifacts.
If you don't use an artifact manager, but use some other clever method to manage your C++ artifacts for release/test needs I'd be happy to hear that also.
I have exactly the same issue. I didn't succeed to integrate artifactory easilly, so I forgot it.
For the moment I use the copy artefact plugin to copy by scp the file to an NFS share. But this is not a good solution since shares may be mounted differently on two machines, and windows cannot access them directly.
But a real artifact manager would be so such a good thing for our project.
In my previous job, I was using a documentation CMS (LiveLink) which provided good services:
- self organising folder.
- persistant url (we can move, rename folders and files, a public URL to a given files never changes, that was SOOO great : "http://server/go/123456789123456789" always pointed to the same file. So you just had to give this url to wget and you get the file
- file versionning.
- meta data, advanced search
I'm still searching such a solution in opensource software and don't find it.
In you just need to share artefact between two jobs, simple use the "copy artifact for another build" plugin. I use it to split my job into a a build job and a test job (actually there are 3 test jobs, one very fast done after each commit, one quite slow done every day, and one very slow done each week end).
Related
I‘m looking for a way to add unit tests to my documentation. I generate my docs website from asciidoc using antora. Works perfectly fine. Now I am looking for a way to unit test my docs (asciidoc files as well). But this is not my question right now.
What I want right now is a way to test the filesystem structure of my docs. I have several repos with similar base setup and basic docs. The details differ but e.g. I want to ensure every docs have their main docs in PROJECT/docs/modules/ROOT and the navigation file is named nav.adoc in every module etc.
Basically I want the same docs structure for every project.
So I wonder if there is a way to test the filesystem (foldernames, Filenames). Ultimately these tests should be part of my gitlab ci pipeline.
Can archunit help with that? I’d consider it if there is no better way, but since archunit targets java projects it seems like overkill for my uaecase.
It is important to remember that Antora can gather content from multiple repos. When Antora gathers content, that content is held in a virtual filesystem until the transformation to HTML is complete. That means that wherever you run Antora, the filesystem structure of the repos cannot be directly interrogated unless it happens to be local (you're using "author" mode, or you have an up-to-date checkout of the repo(s) locally).
It is possible to write an extension for Antora (in JavaScript, since Antora is a Node.js application) to investigate the virtual filesystem and complain about any structural problems found.
Outside of Antora, you'd basically be writing a repo-specific test. That test could be invoked any way you like, say by running a test script when make is run. Or, you might add a git commit hook to your repo that prevents commits when the appropriate file structure does not exist.
The TL;DR answer is "yes, this can be done". However, it requires some implementation effort to achieve.
I'm interested in setting up a remote build system at work, initially for internal use, potentially for some customers going forward. We need to compile library code on several different machines (PC, Mac) and with multiple compilers, and it can be a real pain trying to get access to a full set. This is not our main build system, which is Jenkins-based and uses an approach that is not easily modified for the purpose envisaged here.
The idea would be that you could post your source to a website with some basic build parameters, it would compile the code and you could then download the generated code. Ideally users could pick which version of the underlying software they compiled their libraries against. I envisage it being supported by a virtual machine.
Reason I'm posting is that I don't really want to roll-my-own as much as possible - longer term it has maintenance implications - and would prefer something as pre-existing as possible. Obviously one would expect some adaptation in terms of scripting.
Any suggestions? It would have to be supported on Mac and PC at absolute minimum.
This sounds like something you could do by creating a parameterized Jenkins job (the build params given as input to your web frontent could be passed on to the job, perhaps via the Jenkins API). Personally, I would see if you could skip the step of creating a new webfrontend, and have users pass their build params directly to Jenkins.
To support downloading the resulting compiled code, you could have the Jenkins job archive the build as an artifact. Users could then download the files from the result page for that individual build.
As for how to make a Jenkins job accept source code to compile as input, perhaps you could use branches in your CM system? Your users could push their code to a branch, and then pass the branch as a build param. Otherwise, you might be able to use the file parameter feature of Jenkins.
It seems that a build system best-practice is to have a single script that can build all source and package the releases. See Joel Test #2
How do you account for non-portable dependencies? For example, if you code for .net 4, then you need .net 4 installed on the box. Standard MS release .net 4 is not xcopy deployable (unless I'm mistaken?). I can see a few avenues:
the dependencies are clearly stated in some resource file (wiki, txt, whatever). When you
call the build script, the build will fail if you don't have the dependency installed. This is an acceptable outcome.
The build script is responsible for setting up the environment. So if you require .net 4 and its not on the box then it installs it for you.
A flavor of #2 - instead of installing dependencies, the script spawns a pre-packaged image (virtual machine, Amazon EC2 AMI) that is setup with all dependencies
???
For implementing a build script you have to ask yourself, how much work you want/can spent on it. This leads to the question how often you have to set up the build environment. I can see #2 would be the perfect solution, but i would need a lot of work, since usually you have more than one non portable dependency.
So we use #1 one. And it works quite well. The most important thing is, that the build script is starting with some sort of self-test. It looks for everything which is needed to build the whole software and gives an error if something is not found. And it gives a clear error message, so that any new guy knows what to do to make it running. Of course as with a lot of software it is nearly never finished and gets extended by needs. The drawback that this test can take some seconds is insignificant when whole build process needs more than minutes.
A wiki (or even sth. else) with the setup solution was not a good solution for us, since after three month nobody knows where this was, but the build script is used every day.
The build script itself is a set of a lot of different things, which where chosen by needs. It is starting with a batch (we are using Windows) which invokes a lot of other things. Other batches, MSBuild, home grown tools. Each step by it self is checking for its own dependencies, to have the problem local and you can see three lines later why this special thing is needed.
Number 2 states "Can you make a build in one step?" As described this means for a development team to be effective the build process must be as simple as possible to reduce errors in the build process and insure consistency. This is especially important as a team gets larger. You want to make sure everyone is building the same thing. (What is done with that package should also be simple, but it is not as important IMHO.) Msbuild is great at this; they provide the facilities to set up a build server that access the source control system independently so the developers actions can't corrupt the build environment. I highly recommend setting up a build server using TFS -- many build issues will go away and you will have the 1-click build Joel describes.
As for your points about what that package does for deployment -- you have many options with MS, but the more "one click" you can make it the better. I believe this is slightly different than Joel's #2. In his example he describes changing what software he will use for the install not because one performs with fewer steps, but instead because one can be incorporated into a one step build.
I would love to hear ideas on how to best move code from development server to production server.
A list of gotcha's, don't do this list would be helpful.
Any tools to help automate the steps of.
Make backups of existing code, given these list of files
Record the Deployment of these files from dev to production
Allow easier rollback if deployment or app fails in any way...
I have never worked at a company that had a deployment process, other than a very manual, ftp files from dev to production.
What have you done in your companies, departments, etc?
Thank you...
Yes, I am a coldfusion programmer, but files are files, and this should be language agnostic question.
OK, I'll bite. There's the technology aspect of this problem, which other answers have already covered. But the real issue is a process problem. Where the real focus should be ensuring a meaningful software development life cycle (SDLC) - planning, development, validation, and deployment. I'll cover each in turn. What you want is a repeatable activity at each phase.
Planning
Articulating and recording what's to be delivered. Often tickets or user stories are enough. Sometimes you do more, like a written requirements document, that a customer signs off on, that's translated into various artifacts such as written use cases - ultimately what you want though is something recorded in an electronic system where you can associate changes to code with it. Which leads me to...
Development
Remember that electronic system? Good. Now when you make changes to code (you're committing to source control right?) you associate those change with something in this electronic system - typically tickets. I like Trac, but have also heard good things about Atlassian's suite. This gives you traceability. So you can assert what's been done and how. Then you can use this system and source control to create a build - all the bits needed for whatever's changed - and tag that build in source control - that's your list of what's changed. Even better, have a build contain everything, so that it's standalone entity that can easily be deployed on it's own. The build is then delivered for...
Validation
Perhaps the most important step that many shops ignore - at their own peril. Defects found in production are exponentially more expensive to fix then when they're discovered earlier in the process. And validation is often the only step where this occurs in many shops - so make sure yours does it.
This should not be done by the programmer! That's like the fox watching the hen house. And whoever is doing is should be following some sort of plan. We use Test Link. This means each build is validated the same way, so you can identify regression bugs. And, this build should be deployed in the same way as you would into production.
If all goes well (we usually need a minimum of 3 builds) the build is validated. And this goes to...
Deployment
This should be a non-event, because you're taking a validated build following the same steps as you did in testing. Could be first it hits a staging server, where there's an automated copying process, but the point being is that is shouldn't be an issue at this point, because you validated with the same process.
Conclusion
In terms of knowing what's where, what you really want is a logical way to group changes together. This is where the idea of a build comes in. It's really the unit that should segue between steps in the SDLC. If you already have that, then the ability to understand the state of a given system becomes trivial.
Check out Ant or Maven - these are build and deployment tools used in the Java world which can help you copy / ftp files, backup and even check out code from SVN.
You can automate your deployment steps using these tools, for example Ant will allow you declare a set of tasks as part of your deployment. So you could, for example:
Check out a revision using SVNAnt or similar to a directory
Copy (and perhaps zip first) these files to a backup directory
FTP all the files to your web server(s)
Create a report to email to the team illustrating the deployment
Really you can do almost anything you wish to put time into using Ant. Maven is a little more strucutred (and newer) and you can see a discussion of the differences here.
Hope that helps!
In a nutshell...
You should start with some source control solution - probably Subversion or Git. Once that's in place you can create a script that generates a clean build of your source code and deploys it to your production server(s).
You could do this with a simple batch script or use something like Ant for more control. Here is a simple example of a batch file using Subversion:
svn copy svn://path/to/your/project/trunk -r HEAD svn://path/to/your/project/tags/%version%
svn checkout svn://path/to/your/project/trunk -r HEAD //path/to/target/directory
Ant makes it easy to do things like automatically run unit tests and sync directories. For example:
<sync todir="//path/to/target/directory" includeEmptyDirs="true" overwrite="true">
<fileset dir="${basedir}">
<exclude name="**/*.svn"/>
<exclude name="**/test/"/>
</fileset>
</sync>
This is really just a starting point. A next step might be a continuous integration solution like Hudson. I would also recommend reading "Pragmatic Project Automation: How to Build, Deploy, and Monitor Java Applications".
One ColdFusion specific gotcha is to make sure you clear the Application scope when required (to update any singleton components). A common approach here is to use a URL parameter that causes onRequestStart() to call onApplicationStart(). You may also have to clear the trusted cache.
We use a system called AnthillPro: http://www.anthillpro.com
It's commercial software, but it allows us to completely automate our deployment process across multiple servers and operating systems (We currently use it for both ColdFusion and Java, but it can be used for most languages. It has a ton of 3rd party integrations:
http://www.anthillpro.com/html/products/anthillpro/tool-integrations.html
I have a maven project that converts text files of a specific format to another format.
For testing I have put in src/test/resources a large amount of test files.
I also have another project that uses the first one to do the conversion and then do some extra stuff on the output format. I also want to test this project against the same test dataset, but I dont want to have duplicate data sets and I want to be able to test the first project alone since it is also a standalone converter project.
Is there any common solution for doing that? I dont mind not having the test dataset inside the projects source tree as long as each project can access the data set independently of the other. I dont want to setup a database for that also. I am thinking something like a repository of test data simpler than an RDBMS. Is there any application for this kind of need that I can use with a specific maven plugin? Ease of setup and simplicity is my priority. Also I m thinking something like packaging the test data and putting it in a internal maven repo and then downloading it and unzip it in the junit code. Or better, is there a maven plugin that can do this for me?
Any ideas?
It is possible to share resources with Maven, for example with the help of the Assembly and Dependency plugins. Basically:
Create a module with a packaging of type pom to hold the shared resources
Use the assembly plugin to package the module as a zip
Declare a dependency on this zip in "consumer" modules
And use dependency:unpack-dependencies (plus some exclusion rules) to unpack the zip
This approach is detailed in How to share resources across projects in Maven. It requires a bit of setup (which is "provided") and is not too complicated.
Just place them in a tree in the src/main/resources directory of a separate module specially to share the test data. They will be added to the jar file and me nicely compressed and versioned in your nexus repository, file-share, ~/.m2/repository or whatever you use to store/distribute maven artifacts.
Then just add a dependency in the projects you need the data in the test scope and use resource loading to get them from the jars.
You do not need any special plugins or other infrastructure. This just works.