I've been fortunate enough to discover django_compressor and implemented it within our stack, which deploys to many servers (Currently 6, but growing as we deploy smaller virtual machines.)
Now this is all fine and dandy if you're using django_compressor at its finest. Compressing raw CSS/JS code
However, say now I want introduce some type of pre-compiler. Let's say for this example it is LESS (css). The thought process for this is fairly simple:
Install node, npm, and the less package onto the server.
Add less to your precompilers!
COMPRESS_PRECOMPILERS = ( ('text/less', 'lessc {infile} {outfile}'), )
Now you deploy, and your server compiles the less file. Everything is fantastic!
Now let's add 8 more servers to that and you have to install node, npm, and less on each server?
This is where something doesn't seem right, and I feel like I'm missing something. I believe the Django community has run into this problem before.
My thoughts thus far have been:
Use a post-commit hook to compile the CSS on the developers machine. This means that via django_compressor, we link to the compiled static file in the HTML, and our repository contains both the compiled and non-compiled versions. My only downside to this is it ends up not using half of the benefits of django_compressor and may be tedious for developers?
Suck it up and make node, npm, and less part of the server stack.
Update
I did some additional looking around and it seems that using the COMPRESS_OFFLINE flag (or just --force) with the management command will produce an offline manifest file that does what I need (only tested locally). So setting this up with a pre-deploy hook likes to be the answer.
Of course, still open to other ideas :-)
Coupled with the tips in the comments about COMPRESS_OFFLINE, you could look at django-staticfiles' storage stuff. You can host the static files on amazon s3, for instance, so hosting it all on one static-hosting server and using that from all your servers could also be a nice solution. You wouldn't need to do anything with the static (and compressed) files on the individual servers.
Alternative solution regarding the multiple servers: I've made a custom fabric (docs.fabfile.org) script that installs/configures stuff on our servers. I've only recently started using coffeescript and less, but those two are definitively ending up in my fabfile. That solves the installation problem for me.
(Alternatives to a fabfile are things like a custom debian package with standard dependencies. Or chef or puppet or something similar.)
you can use puppet for the task
Related
I've got a Django site which uses the "django-machina" forum software, which in its latest incarnation apparently uses Bootstrap4 styling.
After installing the package according to directions, it looks beautiful on my development box. But, when I deploy exactly the same software on production, Bootstrap obviously isn't running because nothing is properly styled.
There are no 404's and no console messages. *(Yes, I remembered to run manage.py collectstatic ...) There are some stylesheets complaints from Firefox but they're identical in both cases. But ... the display is not!
Can anyone suggest what I might do in order to solve this problem? I'm stumped!
Well, once again I answered my own question!
I correctly guessed that, since I was maintaining the remote site from my own box using rsync, there might be some garbage left over on the remote side that wasn't being swept-up. (I can't use rsync --delete for fear of smashing directories that contain images and uploaded materials.) I guess it would probably be smarter for me to start using an external repo so that git can do for me what it's designed to do ...
But anyway, when I deleted selected directories containing the central and most-often updated directories, then used rsync to replace them with clean copies, the interference went away and production now looks correct.
I'm new to git. I've read the well-written intro book. But gee, it's still not a trivial topic. I've been bumbling around, experiencing various problems. I realized it might be because I'm unaware of workflow, and specifically, "what are the best practices for doing what I'm trying to do?"
I started out developing a django project on my win7 with Pycharm. Great way to get the initial 95% written.
But then I need to deploy it to my production machine at PythonAnywhere.
So I created a private Github repository, pushed my win7 codebase to github.
Then in pythonAnywhere, I cloned the github repository.
For now, no others work on this project. It will not be released to the public.
Now that the server is running on PythonAnywhere, I still need to tweak settings, which is best done on the PythonAnywhere codebase side. But there are other improvements (new pages, or views) that I'd rather do inside Pycharm IDE on my win7 than in vim on python anywhere.
So I've been kind of clumsily pushing and fetching these changes. It's been kind of ham-handed, and I've managed to lose some minor changes through ignorance.
So I'm wondering if anyone can point to a relatively simple workflow that would handle the various tasks I mentioned:
1) improving functionality of the site (best done in Pycharm IDE)
2) production server issues and tweaks (best done on PythonAnywhere)
3) keeping everythign safely backed-up on Github
The other issue is that I have another django app that I want to build. It's easiest to temporarily hang it off the django project I've already built. But I'd prefer to keep it in its own repository.
So I have Original_Project, Original_App stored in Original_Repository
I want to make new_app, and have it, for the time being, run in Original_Project, but I want to version control it in New_Repository.
I think/hope that I could put a .gitignore in the Original_Repository, saying ignore the new_app/ Then I git init new_app/ as its own repository. Is that sound or mad?
You should avoid editing your code on the production server as much as possible, and never commit from the production server. If you end up having to tweaks things on the server (you shouldn't but well, shit happens and sometimes it's indeed easier to first get the code back to work on the server), then once it's working manually report your edits to your local repo, clear up the changes on the server and deploy the fixed code again. Here the github repo should be considered as the "master" repository for deployments, ie you work on your local repo, push to github, and on the server pull from github. This make sure you keep the github repo in sync.
wrt/ the "improving functionality" (aka "features") vs "server issues and tweaks" (aka "hotfixes"), git flow is a (mostly) sane workflow IMHO but that's a bit opinion-based here (some dislike it and have sensible arguments too).
Finally if you want to factor out one of your apps, the best is to have it in it's own (github) repo with all the proper python packaging stuff and make it a requirement of your main project. On your local dev environment you install it as an editable package, and for the production setup you install it as normal package pinned to the last stable version. Note that in both cases I assume you're using virtualenvs (and if you dont, well that's the very first issue you should address).
Update:
What are the downsides of of editing directly on the production server and committing from the production server?
Well quite simply a production server is not the place for coding - "production" means that you have users trying to do something with your website and they don't want to have the site breaking on them, their data lost or whatever because you are "tweaking" things. You should only deploy stable, well tested code on production, and the one and only one case where editing anything on the server might be a last resort option is when it's already broken and you want to get it back online asap whatever it takes (case of "first make it work, then make it clean").
Point is, I'm a professional developer working on projects that are business criticals and a broken site is not an option, so I'm very strict on this - but even if it's a hobby project, your users deserve some respect (at least if you expect to see them back).
A proper production chain actually involves at least three environments: your local dev environment, a staging server (which should closely mirror the production server - system, system package versions, configurations etc etc) to test out / showcase / eventually do minor config tweak, and the production server which should only ever see stable tested code.
I have always struggled with git, knowing it well enough to get thigs working, but never being sure I am doing thing well.
I would suggest installing git flow (it is probably available in your package manager if you are on Linux). Its a set of extensions that simplify a standard git worklfow. Since using it, this has pretty much been all the documentation I have needed.
https://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
Question 1:
I am about to deploy my first Django website and I was wondering what tools are recommended to gathering all your Django files.
Like for example I don't need my sass and coffeescript files I just want the compiled css and js files. I also want to use the correct production settings file.
Question 2:
Do I put these files ready for deployment into their own version control repository? I guess the advantage is that you can easily roll back changes?
Question 3:
Do I run my tests before gathering the files or before deploying?
Shell scripts could be a solution but maybe there is a better way? I looked at jenkins/hudson but that seems more like a tool that sits on top of the tools that I am looking for.
For questions one and two, I'd recommend using a version control system for this. I'm sure you're already using some sort of version control, so you can just say which branch of your repository you would like to deploy. And yes, this makes rollbacks incredibly easy. Probably the most popular method for Django deployment is to package your files using git, and then deploy these files and run any deployment scripts using fabric.
Using git, packaging your files using your local repository would look something like:
git archive --format=tar HEAD | gzip > my_repo.tar.gz
Alternately, you can first push your changes to a github repository, and then in your deployment script just clone your repository from your production server.
For your third question, if you use this version control method for packaging your files, then just make sure when you are testing you have the deployment branch checked out.
I'll typically use Fabric for deploying most Django projects:
http://docs.fabfile.org/en/1.0.0/?redir
It has a decent api for communicating with remote servers and it's all in Python – bonus!
You don't need to store your concatenated media files in a separate repo. They're only needed for production. In that case I've found libraries like django-mediasync and django-compress to be useful. They both provide template tags/settings that can concatenate and cache your static files for you depending on the DEBUG setting/environments (production vs development).
You can run your tests whenever. Some people will run them as a version control hook to prevent broken code from being checked in or during deployment, stopping the deployment in case of test failure.
I am trying to work out a good way to run a staging server and a production server for hosting multiple Coldfusion sites. Each site is essentially a fork of a repo, with site specific changes made to each. I am looking for a good way to have this staging server move code (upon QA approval) to the production server.
One fanciful idea involved compiling the sites each into EAR files to be run on the production server, but I cannot seem to wrap my head around Coldfusion archives, plus I cannot see any good way of automating this, especially the deployment part.
What I have done successfully before is use subversion as a go between for a site, where once a site is QA'd the code is committed and then the production server's working directory would have an SVN update run, which would then trigger a code copy from the working directory to the actual live code. This worked fine, but has many moving parts, and still required some form of server access to each server to run the commits and updates. Plus this worked for an individual site, I think it may be a nightmare to setup and maintain this architecture for multiple sites.
Ideally I would want a group of developers to have FTP access with the ability to log into some control panel to mark a site for QA, and then have a QA person check the site and mark it as stable/production worthy, and then have someone see that a site is pending and click a button to deploy the updated site. (Any of those roles could be filled by the same person mind you)
Sorry if that last part wasn't so much the question, just a framework to understand my current thought process.
Agree with #Nathan Strutz that Ant is a good tool for this purpose. Some more thoughts.
You want a repeatable build process that minimizes opportunities for deltas. With that in mind:
SVN export a build.
Tag the build in SVN.
Turn that export into a .zip, something with an installer, etc... idea being one unit to validate with a set of repeatable deployment steps.
Send the build to QA.
If QA approves deploy that build into production
Move whole code bases over as a build, rather than just changed files. This way you know what's put into place in production is the same thing that was validated. Refactor code so that configuration data is not overwritten by a new build.
As for actual production deployment, I have not come across a tool to solve the multiple servers, different code bases challenge. So I think you're best served rolling your own.
As an aside, in your situation I would think through an approach that allows for a standardized codebase, with a mechanism (i.e. an API) that allows for the customization you're describing. Otherwise managing each site as a "custom" project is very painful.
Update
Learning Ant: Ant in Action [book].
On Source Control: for the situation you describe, I would maintain a core code base and overlays per site. Export core, then site specific over it. This ensures any core updates that site specific changes don't override make it in.
Call this combination a "build". Do builds with Ant. Maintain an Ant script - or perhaps more flexibly an ant configuration file - per core & site combination. Track version number of core and site as part of a given build.
If your software is stuffed inside an installer (Nullsoft Install Shield for instance) that should be part of the build. Otherwise you should generate a .zip file (.ear is a possibility as well, but haven't seen anyone actually do this with CF). Point being one file that encompasses the whole build.
This build file is what QA should validate. So validation includes deployment, configuration and functionality testing. See my answer for deployment on how this can flow.
Deployment:
If you want to automate deployment QA should be involved as well to validate it. Meaning QA would deploy / install builds using the same process on their servers before doing a staing to production deployment.
To do this I would create something that tracks what server receives what build file and whatever credentials and connection information is necessary to make that happen. Most likely via FTP. Once transferred, the tool would then extract the build file / run the installer. This last piece is an area I would have to research as to how it's possible to let one server run commands such as extraction or installation remotely.
You should look into Ant as a migration tool. It allows you to package your build process with a simple XML file that you can run from the command line or from within Eclipse. Creating an automated build process is great because it documents the process as well as executes it the same way, every time.
Ant can handle zipping and unzipping, copying around, making backups if needed, working with your subversion repository, transferring via FTP, compressing javascript and even calling a web address if you need to do something like flush the application memory or server cache once it's installed. You may be surprised with the things you can do with Ant.
To get started, I would recommend the Ant manual as your main resource, but look into existing Ant builds as a good starting point to get you going. I have one on RIAForge for example that does some interesting stuff and calls a groovy script to do some more processing on my files during the build. If you search riaforge for build.xml files, you will come up with a great variety of them, many of which are directly for ColdFusion projects.
Would it be possible/safe to run two instances of VisualSVNServer pointing to the same repo?
I've searched around and not had any luck finding anything related specifically to this question. The only reason I ask is because we have a need to enable Windows Authentication/Integration over http, and svn authentication over https. It does not seem to be an option to run both within a single instance of VisualSVNServer.
If not, do you know of alternative solution that would allow for this?
Edit: Received the following answer from VisualSVN Support
Thanks to Subversion design, repositories are ready to be accessed by several server instances simultaneously. We haven't experimented a lot with such configuration, but I think it's possible.
Am I understand properly, that you are going to store your repositories on a network storage and run two VisualSVN Server instances on different machines?
Please take care about the server.pid. file. In the current release, this file is stored in the repositories folder. So there will be a collision between two instances of VisualSVN Server. We are going to fix this problem in the upcoming release.
You can easily relocate the server.pid to another destination by adding the following command to the "C:\Program Files\VisualSVN Server\conf\httpd-custom.conf" file:
[[
PidFile "C:/Tmp/server.pid"
]]"
You can point two VisualSVN Server instances to the same repository if it stored on SMB share without any problems. It's typical configuration for active/active or active/passive cluster setups.
I wouldn't do this because as far as I know, VisualSVN brings its own web server (Apache) and SVN binaries. I would expect locking issues when running two of each on the same repo, if it's possible at all. VisualSVN probably won't install twice at all.
This sounds like a case for separate installation of SVN and Apache and custom configuration. I can't say whether what you want is possible but I would expect it is. It's probably to be fiddly, though - VisualSVN takes away a lot of configuration hassle that you have when doing the setup manually. Questions about that would be appropriate to ask on Serverfault.com.
Apart from VisualSVN, there also are other, also commercial wrappers. Maybe one of them is more flexible in this respect.
Update: Also, check this out: Supporting Multiple Repository Access Methods from the SVN book