We share a SonarQube 6.2 istance between some teams. Every team uses their own quality profiles and gates for their different projects.
Now we'd like something similiar for the settings. We don't want to set analysis scope and such for the SQ instance because they differ between teams. On the other hand a teams doesn't want to maintain the same settings for a number of projects.
Is it planned to provide a "Settings Profile" to share between projects?
Sharing settings between projects will be possible at some point of time on our online SonarQube.com service thanks to the concept of organization that we will introduce very soon.
For SonarQube on premise installation, nothing is planned on that topic for the moment.
Related
I've been looking through the site and I have found some information with regards to this topic, but most of the information is old and possibly outdated.
example: Continuous Integration tools
We are: We're a SaaS product with a microservice (200+) architecture.
We have: We currently do our building through bamboo, and we use nexus as an artifact manager with proper versioning. We deploy those artifacts using bamboo to many different machines. For our frontend deployment we build our code through continua and use AWS codedeploy to handle the deployment. We use Bitbucket and Jira for our development. We have done a POC with bitbucket pipelines but we were lacking proper version management there as well as proper environment management. Setting up 10 servers for every repository manually is just something that we don't want to do.
We want: Since bamboo is EOL next year and since there are many alternatives with different levels of complexity we are currently unsure about the tools that are most suited to our needs. We are currently running everything on dedicated linux machines, but we want to switch to docker containers in AWS in the near future. Support for running gulp scripts etc. would be great since that could help us move from continua and bamboo to one single solution.
The setup of bamboo has been a struggle in the past due to difficulties with the software itself. A nice balance between features and complexity would be best. Does anybody have experience with one or more of the options out there? Some that come to mind are CircleCi, teamCity, GitLab, Jenkins and AWS codePipeline.
Many thanks,
Kenny
Bamboo doesn't EOL next year, but Atlassian forces to switch from perpetual licenses to DC licences to be renewed every year. You can get discount prices when switch to Server to DC licenses. See details at https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/data-center
I would propose Kraken CI. It is open-source and can work on-premise but in the cloud as well. In the cloud, it has support for AWS and Azure, and can do autoscaling depending on a number of tasks.
If you are interested please contact me.
I am managing releases for a team of 8 developers. We have three environments:
DEV - where we all make our changes
UAT - an environment for users to test changes
LIVE - live environment
We use Visual Studio 2015 and TFS 2017.
Developers make changes to files and submit them for release to UAT by emailing a list (sometimes with a changeset number). Sometimes different users will make changes to the same files but not all changes should be released.
Once tested in UAT, the changes are released to Live however sometimes a file needs to move from UAT to Live that has earlier changes in it that are not approved for Live release yet.
Please could I ask users' advice as to what the best way for managing this process should be? Unintended changes keep getting released to UAT or Live when they should remain in DEV or UAT.
Any advice would be very welcome. Thanks
Usually this kind of "the best way" question is primarily opinion-based and hard to answer.
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert
experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost
entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific
expertise.
Developers make changes to files and submit them for release to UAT by emailing a list (sometimes with a changeset number).
For this scenario, instead of using E-Mail to send lists, perhaps you could use this extension
This extension is a build task you can use in build steps. This task generates a markdown release notes file based on a template passed into the tool. Here is an example of release notes output:
Release notes for build SampleSolution.Master
Build Number: 20160229.3 Build started: 29/02/16 15:47:58 Source
Branch: refs/heads/master
Associated work items
Task 60 [Assigned by: Bill ] Design WP8 client Associated change
sets/commits
ID bf9be94e61f71f87cb068353f58e860b982a2b4b Added a template ID
8c3f8f9817606e48f37f8e6d25b5a212230d7a86 Start of the project
The suggestion on the comment is a way that fits your needs and your circumstances. You could create three branches stands for your three environments. And for each branch you could use branch policy(GIT) which will protect your branches and avoid unintended changes merged to UAT and Live.
Since the TFS system or any other tool is hard to judge whether some files are approved or not to release yet. It' based on your team management, you could use permissions in TFS to limit users who have access to deployment or do the release. For example only PM and team leader could handle this. Combine with work items, charts , test management, reports and other functions in TFS.
Note Team Foundation Server is a product that not only provides source code management,build, release, but also reporting, requirements management, project management (for both agile software development and waterfall teams), lab management and testing capabilities. It covers the entire application lifecycle, and enables DevOps capabilities.
Suggest you first go through the Release Management in TFS and also take a look at how to configure your release pipelines for multiple environments deployments
Our use case for Sonar creates new Sonar projects for each branch of our repository. How do we automatically associate the new branch project with a (non-default) Quality Profile and Quality Gate?
We're running this in a Maven project if that's relevant.
We had the same issue, within our company, and the only solution was to use the deprecated attribute sonar.profile (https://docs.sonarqube.org/display/SONAR/Analysis+Parameters).
Sidenote:
Generally there is also a interesting view on how to analyze branches. The general recommendation from sonarSource suggests to only use preview modes for short living branches. As a fact bitbucket-plugins with a richer featureset than just commenting issues, sadly need branch based analysis.
https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/SONAR-5370 - the property will be removed in 4.5.1 based on the sonar task
Use the api/projects/create web service to provision your projects. You can then call api/qualityprofiles/add_project to assign your new project to the proper profiles. (You'll need to have first looked up the profile id's tho with api/qualityprofiles/search.)
Indeed, I have found Developer Cockpit Plugin which is commercial one. But I would like to know is there any alternative with simple features (None Commercial) to apply?
Use an SCM Plugin (e.g. Git Plugin) and you'll immediately benefit from the auto-assign feature: if the committer of a line with an issue matches a SonarQube user account, issue will be automatically assigned to that user (who can see his issues from his User Account). Not to mention all the issue filtering that you can then do by author.
Our team has a full licence for the TeamCity server, as well as 7 additional agents. Another unrelated team has reached the limits of their free TeamCity licence and is eyeing our licences up.
The powers that be think it's a good idea to run both teams using the same enterprise licence, which means that we'd be hosting the TeamCity configurations on the same server, and either sharing agents or somehow assigning some agents to one team, some to another.
One concern I have is that configuring an agent to only accept certain builds is difficult - our team has hundreds of build configurations, and we create new ones all the time. To limit an agent to certain builds, you have to fully specify the whitelist. So maintaining the agents such that we have full use of some agents, and the other team has full use of theirs will be a pain. On the other hand, just using one pool of agents means now you have arguments over priority and starvation, etc.
Does anyone have any experience of this? Is it a workable solution? How do you configure agents to reserve them for a particular team? How do you configure the server so that each team only sees their own projects, build configurations and agents? Basically what we'd want is complete separation of the projects, just using the same TeamCity server and agents.
As a gut feeling it doesn't look like a good idea...
edit: As an aside, does Hudson do this better? The ivory tower architects want us to change from TeamCity to Hudson because other people are using Hudson. If I tell them this sharing TeamCity won't work, the Hudson camp will probably use it as a stick to beat us with. Joy.
Not sure what version of TeamCity you're using but the newly released TeamCity v7.0 now has a new Agent Pool feature that provides a much easier way to distribute agents. It may be of interested to you, check out the What's New section or the Agent Pools docs for more info.
I had a similar issue with our two departments starting to share the same TeamCity instance to save the expenses of additional licenses. I must admit we didn't really have any issues apart from our agents were now twice as busy.
I enabled Per-project permissions on the Global Settings page and created 2 user groups, one for 'us', and the other for 'them'. You can then configure each group's roles accordingly. If a group does not have the Project Viewer role for a project then it does not appear for them - a great way to only display necessary projects to the group; but there are plenty of other role options to use.
I have never used Hudson so can't compare unfortunately. I should really try it out but as I've always got on so well with TC I've never had a reason too.
You can make builds on run on certain agent, from the build configuration of each build in the agent requirements section, thereby limiting any build configuration to certain agents.
For example if your agent for one team is teamcity1 you can specify:
system.agent.name does not equal teamcity1
So it will never run on that agent.
That way you can at least copy build configurations and they will run on seperate agents without the fiddle agent configuration.
The other team can create a new Teamcity server, and it will have its own new set of free build configurations and agents.
We don't do this any more, but we used to split our agents into pseudo-pools so we could reserve some for compilations and others for automated tests (because automated test jobs can swamp the grid). We added a "can_run_tests" property to the test agents, and made those builds require that property as an agent condition. It worked great, and it's the sort of thing you can bake into the AMI for a set of cloud agents.
What we do now is to make the compilation and test builds require on different AMIs, which does essentially the same thing.