I just finished a Django app that I want to get some outside user feedback on. I'd like to launch one version and then fork a private version so I can incorporate feedback and add more features. I'm planning to do lots of small iterations of this process. I'm new to web development; how do websites typically do this? Is it simply a matter of copying my Django project folder to another directory, launching the server there, and continuing my dev work in the original directory? Or would I want to use a version control system instead? My intuition is that it's the latter, but if so, it seems like a huge topic with many uses (e.g. collaboration, which doesn't apply here) and I don't really know where to start.
1) Seperate URLs www.yoursite.com vs test.yoursite.com. you can also do www.yoursite.com and www.yoursite.com/development, etc.. You could also create a /beta or /staging..
2) Keep seperate databases, one for production, and one for development. Write a script that will copy your live database into a dev database. Keep one database for each type of site you create. (You may want to create a beta or staging database for your tester).. Do your own work in the dev database. If you change the database structure, save the changes as a .sql file that can be loaded and run on the live site database when you turn those changes live.
3) Merge features into your different sites with version control. I am currently playing with a subversion setup for web apps that has my stable (trunk), one for staging, and one for development. Development tags + branches get merged into staging, and then staging tags/branches get merged into stable. Version control will let you manage your source code in any way you want. You will have to find a methodology that works for you and use it.
4) Consider build automation. It will publish your site for you automatically. Take a look at http://ant.apache.org/. It can drive a lot of automatically checking out your code and uploading it to each specific site as you might need.
5) Toy of the month: There is a utility called cUrl that you may find valuable. It does a lot from the command line. This might be okay for you to do in case you don't want to use all or any of Ant.
Good luck!
You would typically use version control, and have two domains: your-site.com and test.your-site.com. Then your-site.com would always update to trunk which is the current latest, shipping version. You would do your development in a branch of trunk and test.your-site.com would update to that. Then you periodically merge changes from your development branch to trunk.
Jas Panesar has the best answer if you are asking this from a development standpoint, certainly. That is, if you're just asking how to easily keep your new developments separate from the site that is already running. However, if your question was actually asking how to run both versions simultaniously, then here's my two cents.
Your setup has a lot to do with this, but I always recommend running process-based web servers in the first place. That is, not to use threaded servers (less relevant to this question) and not embedding in the web server (that is, not using mod_python, which is the relevant part here). So, you have one or more processes getting HTTP requests from your web server (Apache, Nginx, Lighttpd, etc.). Now, when you want to try something out live, without affecting your normal running site, you can bring up a process serving requests that never gets the regular requests proxied to it like the others do. That is, normal users don't see it.
You can setup a subdomain that points to this one, and you can install middleware that redirects "special" user to the beta version. This allows you to unroll new features to some users, but not others.
Now, the biggest issues come with database changes. Schema migration is a big deal and something most of us never pay attention to. I think that running side-by-side is great, because it forces you to do schema migrations correctly. That is, you can't just shut everything down and run lengthy schema changes before bringing it back up. You'd never see any remotely important site doing that.
The key is those small steps. You need to always have two versions of your code able to access the same database, so changes you make for the new code need to not break the old code. This breaks down into a few steps you can always make:
You can add a column with a default value, or that is optional. The new code can use it, and the old code can ignore it.
You can update the live version with code that knows to use a new column, at which point you can make it required.
You can make the new version ignore a column, and when it becomes the main version, you can delete that column.
You can make these small steps to migrate between any schemas. You can iteratively add a new column that replaces an old one, roll out the new code, and remove the old column, all without interrupting service.
That said, its your first web app? You can probably break it. You probably have few users :-) But, it is fantastic you're even asking this question. Many "professionals" fair to ever ask it, and even then fewer answer it.
What I do is have an export a copy of my SVN repository and put the files on the live production server, and then keep a virtual machine with a development working copy, and submit the changes to the repo when Im done.
Related
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/
let me begin by saying I 'm a coldfusion newbie.
I 'm trying to research if its possible to do the following and what would be the best approach to achieve it.
Whenever a developer checks in code into SVN, I would like to do a get all the new changes/files and do an auto build to check if the code can be deployed successfully to production server. I guess there are two parts to it, one syntax checking and second integration test(if functionality is working as expected). For the later part some unit test tools would have to be used.
Can someone comment on their experience doing something similar for coldfusion.
Sorry for being a bit vague...I know its a very open-ended question but any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks
There's a project called "Cloudy With A Chance of Tests" that purports to do what you require. In particular it brings together a number of other CFML code analysis projects (VarScope & QueryParam) to check code, as well as unit testing. I am not currently using it myself but did have a look at it some time ago (more than 12 months) and it appeared to be quite good.
https://github.com/mhenke/Cloudy-With-A-Chance-Of-Tests
Personally I run MXUnit tests in Jenkins using the instructions from the MXUnit site - available here:
http://wiki.mxunit.org/display/default/Continuous+Integration+--+Running+tests+with+Jenkins
Essentially this is set up as an ant task in Jenkins, which executes the MXUnit tests and reports back the results.
We're not doing fully continuos integration, but we have a process which automates some of the drudgery of our builds:
replace the site's application.cf(m|c) with one that tells users that the app is being deployed (we had QA staff raising defects that were due to re-deployments)
read a database manifest XML which lists all SQL scripts which make up the current release. We concatenate the scripts into a single upgrade script, suitable for shipping
execute the SQL script against the server's DB, noting any errors. The concatenation process also adds a line of SQL after each imported script that white to a runlog table, so we can see what ran, how long it took and which build it was associated with. If you're looking to replicate this step, take a look at Liquibase
deploy the latest code
make an http call to a ?reset=true type URL to tell the app to re-initialize
execute any tests
The build is requested manually through the build servers we have, but you click a button, make tea and it's done.
We've just extended the above to cope with multiple servers in a cluster and it ticks along nicely. I think the above suggestion of using the Jenkins SVN plugin to automate the process sounds like the way to go.
I am trying to backup a whole Sitecore website.
I know that the package designer can do part of the job, but not entirely.
Having a backup is always a good way when the site is broken accidently.
Is there a way or a tool to backup the whole Sitecore website?
I am new to the Sitecore, so any advise is welcome.
Thank you!
We've got a SQL job running to back-up the databases nightly.
Apart from that, when I deploy code and it's a small bit I usually end up backing up only the parts I'm going to replace. If it's a big code deploy I just back up the whole website (code-wise anyway) before deploying the code package.
Apart from that we also run scheduled backups of the code (although I don't know the intervals), and of course we've got source control if everything else fails.
If you've got an automated deployment tool you could also automate the above of course.
Before a major deploy of content or code, I typically backup the master database and zip everything in the website directory minus the App_Data and temp directories. That way if the deploy goes wrong, I can restore the code and database fairly quickly and be back to the previous state.
I have no knowledge of a tool that can do this for you, but there are a few ways you can handle this in an easy way:
1) you can create a database backup of the master database, but this only contains content and no files like media files that are saved on disk or your complete and build solution. It is always a good idea to schedule your database backup every night and save the backups for at least a week or more.
2) When you use the package designer, you can create dynamic pacakges that can contain all your content, media files and solution files on disk. This is an easy way to deploy the site onto a new Sitecore installation all at once, but it requires a manual backup every time.
3) Another way you can use is to serialize your entire content-tree to an xml-format on disk from the Developer tab. Once serialized, you can revert them back into the content tree.
I'd suggest thinking of this in two parts, the first part is backing up the application which is a simple as making sure your application is in some SCM system.
For that you can use Team Development for Sitecore. One of it's features allows you to connect a Visual Studio project to your Sitecore instance.
You can select Sitecore items that you want to be stored in your solution and it will serialize them and place them into your solution.
You can then check them into your SCM system and sleep easier.
The thing to note is deciding which item to place in source control, generally you can think of Sitecore items has developer owned and Content Editor owned. The items you will place in your solution are the items that are developer owned; templates, sublayouts, layouts, and content items that you need for the site to function are good examples.
This way if something goes bad a base restoration is quick and easy.
The second part is the backup of the content in Sitecore that has been added since your deployment. For that like Trayek said above use a SQL job to do the back-ups at whatever interval your are comfortable with.
If you're bored I have a post on using TDS (Team Development for Sitecore) you can check out at Working with Sitecore, Part Nine: TDS
Expanding bit more on what Trayek said, my suggestion would be to have a Continuous Integration (CI) and have automated deploy using Team City.
A good answer is also given here on Stack Overflow.
Basically in your case Teamcity would automatically
1. take back up of the current website (i.e. code) and deploy the new code on top of it.
2. Scripts can also be written to take a differential backup of the SQL databases, if need be.
Hope this helps.
Take a look at Sitecore Instance Manager module. Works really well for packaging entire Sitecore instance.
On Heroku, as soon as you push new code, the web-serving instances restart... even if the underlying database schema additions/changes (via syncdb or south migrate) haven't yet been applied.
In many cases, this might just cause harmless errors undtil the syncdb/migrate is run soon afterward. But I'm concerned that in some cases, new code might half-work making unexpected changes in the pre-migration database.
What's the right way to be safe against this risk?
One technique might be to add the syncdb/migrate to the Procfile so it's run before web restart. But, in the case of multiple instances, or maybe even a case where the one old-code-instance is left running until the moment the one new-code-instance is known-up, there's still a variant of the issue where code is talking to a DB with a mismatched schema.
Is there a 'hold all web instances' feature (or common best practice) for letting the migrate complete without web traffic?
Or am I being overly concerned about a risk that is negligible in practice?
The safest way to handle migrations of this nature, Heroku or no, is to strictly adopt a compatibility approach with your schema and code:
Every additive or transformative schema change must be backwards-compatible;
Every destructive schema change must be performed after the code that depends on it has been removed;
Every code change must either be:
durable against the possibility that associated schema changes have not yet been made (for instance, removing a model or a field on a model) or
made only after the associated schema change has been performed (adding a model or a field on a model)
If you need to make a significant transformation of a model, this approach might require the following steps:
Create a new database table to hold your new model structure, and deploy that migration
Create a new model with the new structure, and code to copy changes from the old model to the new model when the old model changes, and deploy that code
Execute a migration or code action to copy all old model data to the new model
Update your codebase to use the new model rather than the old model, deleting the old model, and deploy that code
Execute a migration to delete the old model structure from the database
With some thought and planning, it can be used for more drastic changes as well:
Deploy code that completely removes dependence on a section of the database, presumably replacing those sections of the site with maintenance pages
Deploy a migration that makes drastic changes that would not for whatever reason work with the above dual-model workflow
Deploy code that brings the affected sections back with the new model structure supported
This can be hard to organize and requires strict discipline and firm understanding of your code's interaction with your database, but in practice, it does allow for most changes to be made with no more downtime than the server restart itself imposes.
Looks like fast-database changeovers are the way to go, but it requires a dedicated database.
http://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/fast-database-changeovers
Alternatively, here's a tutorial for copying the data from one database (e.g., production) to another database (e.g., staging), doing the schema/data migration (e.g., using django/south), then switching the app to use the newly-updated database instance.
http://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/migrating-data-between-plans
Seems reasonable, but potentially slow if there's a large amount of data.
The recommended method is this:
Add database changes for your new features to your existing code
Make the existing code compatible with the new schema
Deploy
Add the new features to your codebase
Deploy
This means that your database changes are already in place when the code starts to require them.
However....
There's a couple of issues with this. First that I know of no development shop that is organised enough to be able to handle this, as features just get built ad-hoc, and secondly that you're not really saving anything.
Generally speaking, unless your making big changes to a massive database your changes won't take long to apply and are usually over in a couple of seconds which a developer can work around quite happily issuing restarts etc when needed. The risk being that a user might get an error page. If the changes are larger, you have some alternatives. One is using maintenance mode to turn the site off for a few seconds.
To be honest, there is no clear cut way for how to handle this nicely as by definition your code needs to be in place for your database changes to start. The best way I've found to approach the problem is to look at each change individually and work out the smoothest path for each on a case by case basis.
Rehearsing deployments on a staging environment will mitigate the risk of a deploy going bad, and give you an idea of the impact.
Heroku recently released "buildpacks" which are the scripts they use to set up an environment for your application, from managing dependencies to restarting the instances. Essentially it's a more comprehensive Procfile which you can customize.
You can fork the Python buildpack and modify the script to run in the sequence you want. Append the command you run to syncdb to the end of bin/steps/django. Commit and put this repo on Github.
Unfortunately as of now it's not possible to modify the buildpack of an existing Heroku app, so you'll have to delete it and recreate one that points to your buildpack repo:
heroku create --stack cedar --buildpack git#github.com:...
This is the best solution because it
Doesn't cost anything at all
Doesn't require you to adapt your code to Heroku
Only syncs the db once per deployment
Hope this helps.
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.