I encountered an error in one of our deployments today so i applied a fix to one of the processes and tried again, however the fix was not picked up. I found i had to create a new release. Is there anyway to force octopus to pick up a change if you try to run the current release again?
That's a core concept in Octopus and its as design. Check the Release Snapshots section of the documentation.
You can update the variables for an already-created release, but not the steps.
Related
I'm pretty new to OctopusDeploy and am trying to set up a process to deploy our artifact to multiple Windows Servers.
As of right now it is deploying the package to the default working directory of C:\Octopus\Applications...... but I need it to be deployed to a different path.
I have defined a Custom Install Directory in the process editor, however this seems to be overlooked during the deployment, and the package just goes to the default directory.
I have tried substituting the path with a variable, but that didn't fix it. There are no errors or warnings in the deployment logs.
Can anyone help?
Sounds like you're taking the right steps to change your custom installation directory on your deployment.
One thing to check is that you've created a new release since updating your step configuration. Because releases in Octopus snapshot the deployment process, any updates you make won't show up in your deployments until you've created a new release.
This might be the wrong place to ask this because there's no actual code involved but I am running out of places I could seek help regarding this.
Previously I've been using Octopus where you can create a build and later push it to other environments like QA, UAT, Production etc.
I'm using Release manager now and I can't find such option. I was told the only way is to either push immediately to all environments and leave them pending until I'm ready to approve them (which is dangerous in case someone else approves the release prematurely)
Or I was told I would have to revert my code back to an earlier state, push a release to the environment I want and then move the code forward again.
This all sounds wrong and tedious to me and the Release manager documentation does not offer a clear answer. Ideally I want to make a release to one environment and at a later date elevate it to another.
If someone knows how it could be done, I would be very grateful.
Release Management supports this scenario.
You create a release path that consists of the environments you want to release to and the order you want to release to them. It also captures who is responsible for promoting a release between stages.
You then create a release template for a given build definition that will travel along that path. When you create a release for that release template, you choose what build from that build definition will be used.
When you trigger a release, it will go to the first stage in the release path, wait for approvals, then move on to the second stage, and so on.
I have two build configurations- a dev configuration (builds on every checkin), and a QA configuration (builds on-demand, whenever a version for qa is released. We don't do continuous deployment (yet)).
When a version for QA is released, I'd like to be able to know what issues have been resolved since the last version. (format is not important- report / chart / text...),
Meaning- i'd like to know all the issues that have been changed to 'resolved' since the date of the last build in this configuration.
I'm using tfs teamcity issue tracker.
Any ideas?
You probably know already that TC has a "Fixed in Build" value?
I find it tricky to use because if we click 'build' once too often, the list of resolved issues gets all messed up.
Thus I'm also interested in expanding the feature, I just posted;
http://devnet.jetbrains.net/thread/438721
API to access "Fixed in Build" value?
In my CruiseControl instances, I have version controlled the ccnet.config file.
When I want to update CruiseControl, I run an "update config" job which fetches the config from version control.
In this manner, the very build process of a release is configuration managed.
I am wondering how to achieve these goals effectively under TeamCity.
I try to keep what ever CI I am using as light as possible and put as much of the running of the build into an msbuild or nant script including running tests, code coverage, etc.
The benefit of this is:
The build file is version controlled.
You can run the script in any environment.
Easier to move between CI environments.
Everyone becomes responsible for the build.
This has been introduced in TeamCity 9. Also answered in another post:
Version control (e.g. in TFS) build configuration for TeamCity - is it possible?
I've been wanting a way to source control TeamCity config for a long time. I ended up writing a Windows Service which monitors the configuration directory and commits changes to git.
The project is on GitHub: https://github.com/grenade/teamcity-config-monitor
You might try looking at the folders that are backed up prior to upgrade (or when restoring team city) as those represent the configurations and changes you've made since initial installation.
http://confluence.jetbrains.net/display/TCD4/TeamCity+Data+Backup
Some of the relevant data is actually a database, (and in fact the documentation advises you to point team city to a real database like mysql instead of the default embedded database it uses)
You could try checking those into SVN, but you'll want to stop team city for any check-in actions.
Recently I updated the cigame-plugin for Hudson to version 1.12. Now I recognized, that no build get points at the moment. The builds are SCM-triggered and the CI-game is activated for the project and the user. What is going wrong? How can I fix it?
EDIT: I have to correct, the update to the new version of the plugin isn't the problem. Looking through the build-history I can see, that after this update builds got a score. But at some point the builds are not longer scored. Nothing happened to hudson at this time, no restart, no reconfiguration etc. Simply SCM-changes came in and triggered builds.
EDIT 2: The ci-game-plugin counts a score for builds started manually, but not for builds started by changes in version-control. I have no idea why it behaves this way.
EDIT 3: Further investigation shows that I have this bug with the same stacktrace produced.
This is so specific to the current state of the Hudson plugin ecosystem, I suggest you go directly to the users mailing list with the question, where the plugin developers can help you directly.