We have a large solution with many projects, and many developers working together.
We need a way to validate Nuget package versions to insure no developer accidentally breaks the build with a package update.
Ideally, is there a way to validate and interupt/stop during Nuget package installation if it is a known incompatible package? We know we can do a validation at build time, but Ideally I'd like to actually be able to stop/inform the developer the newer version is not supported in the build to prevent them from going off and building with the newer package, only at build time to discover they've wasted time on a new package that might have differing calls etc.
If this is not possible, what would be the easiest way to do this at build time? I'm thinking a pre-build script but interested in other ideas. Effectively, the script would look across other project package versions to compare and inform if an incorrect version (and stop a publish to a shared location during build).
Related
I am looking for a tool to manage the collection of binary files (input components) that make up a software release. This is a software product and we have released multiple versions each year for the last 20 years. The details and types of files may vary, but this is something many software teams need to manage.
What's a Software Release made of?
A mixture of files go into our software releases, including:
Windows executables/binaries (40 DLLs and 30+ EXE files).
Scripts used by the installer to create a database
API assemblies for various platforms (.NET, ActiveX, and Java)
Documentation files (HTML, PDF, CHM)
Source code for example applications
The full collected files for a single version of the release are about 90MB. Most are built from source code, but some are 3rd party.
Manual Process
Long ago we managed this manually.
When starting each new release the files used to build the last release would be copied to a new folder on a shared drive.
The developers would manually add or update files in this folder (hoping nothing was lost or deleted accidentally).
The software installer script would be compiled using the files in this folder to produce a SETUP.EXE (output).
Iterate steps 2 and 3 during validation & testing until release.
Automatic Process
Some years ago we adopted CI (building our binaries nightly or on-demand).
We resorted to putting 3rd party binaries under version control since they usually don't change as often.
Then we automated the process of collecting & updating files for a release based on the CI build outputs. Finally we were able to automate the construction of our SETUP.EXE.
Remaining Gaps
Great so far, but this leaves us with two problems:
Rebuilding Assemblies The CI mostly builds projects when something has changed, but when forced it will re-compile a binary that doesn't have any code change. The output is a fresh build of a binary we've previously tested (hint: should we always trust these are equivalent?).
Latest vs Stable Mostly our CI machine builds the latest versions of each project. In some cases this is ok, but often we want to release an older tested or stable version. To do this we have separate CI projects for the latest and stable builds - this works but is clumsy.
Thanks for your patience if you've got this far :-)
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
After some time searching for solutions it seems it might be easier to build our own solution, but surely someone else has solved these problems before!?
What we want is a way to store and manage binary files (either outputs from CI, or 3rd party files) such that each is tagged with a version (v1.2.3.4) that allows:
The CI to publish new versions of each binary (but reject rebuilt versions that already exist).
The development team to make a recipe for a software release (kinda like NuGet packages.config) that specifies components to include:
package name
version
path/destination in the release folder
The Automatic package script to use the recipe collect the required files, and compile the install package (e.g. SETUP.EXE).
I am aware of past debates about storing binaries in a VCS. For now I am looking for a better solution. That approach does not appear ideal for long-term ongoing use (e.g. how to prune old binaries)... amongst other issues.
I have tried some artifact repositories currently available. From my investigation these provide a solution for component/artifact storage and version control. However they do not provide tools for managing a list of components/artifacts to include in a software release.
Does anybody out there know of tools for this?
Have you found a way to get your CI infrastructure to address these remaining issues?
If you're using an artifact repository to solve this problem, how do you manage and automate the process?
This is a very broad topic, but it sounds like you want a release management tool (e.g. BuildMaster, developed by my company Inedo), possibly in conjunction with a package management server like ProGet (which you tagged, and is how I discovered this question).
To address some specific questions you have, I'll associate it with a feature that would solve the problem:
A mixture of files go into our software releases, including...
This is handled in BuildMaster with artifacts. This video gives a basic overview of how they are manually added to releases and deployed to a file system: https://inedo.com/support/tutorials/buildmaster/deployments/deploying-a-simple-web-app-to-iis
Of course, once that works to satisfaction, you can automate the import of artifacts from your existing CI tool, create them from a BuildMaster deployment plan itself, pull them from your package server, whatever. Down the line you can also have your CI tool call the BuildMaster release management API to create a release and automatically have it include all the artifacts and components you want (this is what most of our customers do now, i.e. have a build step in TeamCity create a release from a template).
Rebuilding Assemblies ... The output is a fresh build of a binary we've previously tested (hint: should we always trust these are equivalent?)
You can mostly assume they are equivalent functionally, but it's only the times that they are not that problems arise. This is especially true with package managers that do not lock dependencies to specific version numbers (i.e. NuGet, npm). You should be releasing exactly the same binary that was tested in previous environments.
[we want] the development team to make a recipe for a software release (kinda like NuGet packages.config) that specifies components to include:
This is handled with releases. A developer can choose its name, dates, etc., and associate it with a pipeline (i.e. a set of testing stages that the artifacts are deployed to), then can "click the deploy button" and have the automation do all the work.
Releases are grouped by "application", similar to a project in TeamCity. As a more advanced use case, you can use deployables. Deployables are essentially individual components of an application you include in a release; in your case the "Documentation" could be a deployable, and maybe contain an artifact of the .pdf and .docx files. Deployables from other applications (maybe a different team is responsible for them, or whatever) can then be referenced and "included" in a release, or you can reference ones from a past release.
Hopefully that provides some overview and fits your needs. Getting into this space is a bit overwhelming because there are so many terms, technologies, and methodologies, but my advice is to start simple and then slowly build upon it, e.g.:
deploy a single, manually uploaded component through BuildMaster to a share drive, then manually deploy it from there
add a deployment plan that imports the component
add a second plan and associate it with the 2nd stage that takes the uploaded artifact and deploys it to the target, bypassing the need for the share drive
add more deployment plans and associate them with pipeline stages and promote through them all to "close out" a release
add an agent and deploy to that instead of the default localhost server
add more components and segregate their deployment with deployables
add event listeners to email team members at points in the process
start adding approvals if you require gated "sign-offs"
and so on.
So I have this pretty huge solution with many projects, few of them use dlls from other projects in this solution, some projects copy files to other directories after build is performed. (as post build events)
when I build the solution locally on my machine, everything is great and working, but when i configure a build, and build it on build server (we use TFS) something goes wrong and i get a an error when i try to load one of the applications in this solution. (the error does not give me much data on what went wrong)
so before i sit to debug all of this. does anybody know how can i smartly manage all the build actions that are performed locally and via build server and see the deltas?
I would like to be able to build the solution exactly the same on build server as i do on my machine (with directory structure, post build events..etc)
thanks a lot
The generally accepted way to do what you're after is to use NuGet for managing your assembly references. You can publish your dependent assemblies into NuGet as part of a continuous delivery process, then reference (and update!) those dependencies in the solutions that consume them as necessary.
This removes ambiguity ("What version of Foo.dll is Project X using?") and reduces runtime errors ("Why is Project X using Foo.dll 3.0? It was never tested with 3.0! It needs to run with 2.7!").
Our development team has been fairly small and, until now, all working on a single Visual Studio 2012 solution. We are growing and wanting to create better separation with multiple solutions for different project teams.
However, there are occasions where the code in one solution will want to utilize code from another. We have decided using internal (i.e. private) NuGet packages will be a good way to manage these dependencies.
However, the question has come up on how to deal with multiple versions of the same package that are in different SDLC stages (e.g. Development, QA, Staging, Production, etc.)
Example: If we have these three solutions...
CoreStuff
CoolProject1
CoolProject2
If working in CoolProject1, and we need to utilize code from CoreStuff, we can add the NuGet package. Presumably this package will be the latest Production (stable) version of CoreStuff.
However, what if a developer working on CoolProject2 is aware of some changes in CoreStuff that are currently in Development and wants to utilize that version?
Not sure if the best approach is to create separate packages for each (seems to require changing your package references back and forth depending on what stage the solution is in) or somehow utilize multiple versions of the same package (not sure if that's easy to manage with NuGet).
Anyone tackle something like this?
The first thing to remember is that NuGet will not automatically update your package references, so if you have already 'linked' your solution to the latest stable package of CoreStuff (say 1.2.2) then there won't be any problems if a newer (unstable) version is provided (assuming that the package you're using doesn't disappear from the package repository). Obviously if you upgrade your package reference then you will get the unstable package.
So the simplest solution is to make sure that you 'link' your project to the stable package by getting it via the NuGet package manager before the other package is released. While the UI only allows you to get the latest version, the Package Manager Console can get any version of a package so you could use that to explicitly provide the version number, e.g.:
Install-Package CoreStuff -Version 1.2.2 -Project CoolProject1
If that is not a solution then there are several other options to tackle this problem:
Give the development version a different semantic version that indicates it is a unstable version, e.g. 1.2.3-alpha. In this case CoolProject1 could pull in package CoreStuff.1.2.2 (which should be latest stable version in your repository) and CoolProject2 could pull in CoreStuff.1.2.3-alpha (which would be the latest unstable version).
Have multiple repositories, e.g. one for stable (released) packages and one for unstable (development) versions. Then you can select your packages from the desired repositories. If you wanted to you could make it so that only your release process can push packages up to the stable repository and your CI build pushes up to the unstable one (so that you always have the latest packages available)
If the developer of CoolProject2 just wants to develop against the latest version (but will wait to release CoolProject2 until after CoreStuff v.next has been released) then he could potentially create a local package repository (i.e. a directory on his drive) and put the new package of core stuff there. That way other developers won't even see the package.
The most important thing will be to make sure that you don't get CoreStuff.1.2.2 and CoreStuff.v-next in the same repository if CoreStuff.v-next simply has a higher version number, because in that case the NuGet UI won't let you pick v1.2.2 (but the Package Manager Console does!).
If you would want to switch from one package type to another you'd have to do a manual update (which you always have to do when changing to the next package version anyway), but that's not a bad thing given that this forces a developer to at least check that the update of the package doesn't break anything.
I know Package Manager like NuGet help us when we want to use third party components.
From Nuget Codeplex Page:
NuGet is a free, open source developer focused package management
system for the .NET platform intent on simplifying the process of
incorporating third party libraries into a .NET application during
development.
There are a large number of useful 3rd party open source libraries out
there for the .NET platform, but for those not familiar with the OSS
ecosystem, it can be a pain to pull these libraries into a project.
Let’s take ELMAH as an example. It’s a fine error logging utility
which has no dependencies on other libraries, but is still a challenge
to integrate into a project. These are the steps it takes:
Find ELMAH
Download the correct zip package.
“Unblock” the package.
Verify its hash against the one provided by the hosting environment.
Unzip the package contents into a specific location in the solution.
Add an assembly reference to the assembly.
Update web.config with the correct settings which a developer needs to search for.
And this is for a library that has no dependencies. Imagine doing this
for NHibernate.Linq which has multiple dependencies each needing
similar steps. We can do much better!
NuGet automates all these common and tedious tasks for a package as
well as its dependencies. It removes nearly all of the challenges of
incorporating a third party open source library into a project’s
source tree
these steps are simple tasks that we do when we want to setup a project. its only for automation of adding 3rd party components and decrees chance of Error in configuration files? or it has much more responsibilities !?
It's value is hidden in the open: a package manager such as NuGet helps you dealing with software dependencies using automation. Many make the assumption that it's only meant for open source or third party components, but you could equally as well use it for your own internal packages.
The great thing about NuGet is (to name a few benefits):
NuGet encourages reuse of components because you implicitly rely on actual "releases" (even if pre-release), instead of branching sources
you can get rid of binaries bloating your VCS repositories (package restore feature)
it forces package creators to think about the way the package will be consumed and leaves them dealing with configuration of the component during package installation (who knows best how to configure the package than the package creators?). Think about ELMAH as an example.
automating package creation and publication on a package repository effectively is a form of continuous delivery (for software components). OctopusDeploy even takes it a step further and enables packaging entire Web sites ready for deployment.
NuGet encourages and sometimes enforces you to follow some ALM best practices. E.g. a package has a version, so you have to think about your versioning strategy (e.g. SemVer.org)
NuGet integrates with SymbolSource.org (which also has a Community edition to set up your own): this allows one to easily debug released packages without having to ship this info all the time
having one or more package repositories makes it easy for the organization to maintain a dependency matrix, or even build an inventory of OSS licenses that are in use by several projects
NuGet notifies you about available package updates
Creating packages makes people think about component architecture (all dependencies should be packaged as well)
Dependencies of a package are automatically resolved (so you can't forget any)
NuGet is smart enough to add assembly binding redirects when required
The above list is non-exhaustive, but I hope I covered the key benefits in this answer. I'm sure there are more.
Cheers,
Xavier
Reason to use NuGet is you don't have to ship all the libraries in your project, reducing the project size. With NuGet Power Tools, by specifying the package versions in the Packages.config file, you will be able to download all the required libraries the first time you run the project.
Live Exapmle : Reduced project size matters while deployment of project.Like if solution
have 500Mb of code and 200Mb of packages size then extra 200mb really
cost to upload project each time.Instead of uploading concrete
dll files we need to just set their reference in packages.config file.
I am trying to set up a Continuous Integration process. For my various build tasks(compiling, testing, documentation etc.)I need to have tools that perform these tasks(csc, NUnit, NDoc etc.). My question is should these tools too go into my source control repository?
Why I think that they should is because I read in some online article that the developer environment should be as much similar to the build server environment. To fulfill this requirement, the article suggested that you put everything that is required for your build in the repository and when you check out the code(or the build server checks out the code) you are ready to build the project right away without first installing any other tools. But on the other hand if I put these tools with my source code in the repository then the build server will have to install them whenever a build is run.
Is it OK to install these tools? Won't it increase the time for each build unnecessarily?
It's often more trouble than it's worth to try to check in tools to source control. Rather, write a list of software requirements that must be installed before the source can be checked out and built (one thing that would need to be on this list in any case is the source control system itself). If you rely on software being in source control, some tools might need to be installed in certain paths or be otherwise configured (registry entries come to mind).
I would certainly not check in the compiler itself to source control, and I probably wouldn't check in NUnit or NDoc either. Just install these beforehand, as they are not likely to change too much over the lifetime of your project. Your build script might want to check that the expected version(s) of the required software packages are installed before the build may proceed.
Unless you're customizing the tools there's probably no reason to put their source code in your repository. However there are excellent reasons for putting your config files in the repository.
Re-installing the tools for every single build is overkill and will slow you down.
However it's by far better to have a server dedicated to the continuous integration so that you know its state ; you sure nobody installed anything that may have an impact on the outcome of the build.
If you want to be able to re-generate today's build next year, you need to be able to re-create your environment first. Make sure you'll be able to re-install your tools (exact same version), either by keeping them on your server (installing the newer versions in different directories), or storing the whole package in your configuration management tool.
Think about how you would create another continuous integration server, either to have two of them, or for a second site, or to recover after a disaster. Document how the continuous integration server was set up.
What really needs to be version controlled, is the build scripts, that access the right versions of the tools, especially if you opt for installing several versions of the tools.