I'm trying to create a C++ CI environment by using CDash.
I've got CDash running on my computer and I can send some results to it from the CDash clients, by running the ctest manually.
I'm a bit lost on how to setup a client to automatically compile and test the code when the source code changes in the version control system (subversion), or at specific times.
I have the Mastering CMake book, but it doesn't seem to say much on that topic.
Is there any way to do the continuous build without hacking around with scheduled tasks / cron?
Is there any good example that would be useful to check out?
Can I somehow order to run a build on some site from the Dashboard? I kinda remember seeing this somewhere but I'm unable to find it now.
Is CDash any good for CI environments? (use comments to answer this one)
CDas#Home might be the solution. Generally I have my continuous machines run a script on a nightly cron job that polls the repository every couple of minutes for ~24 hours.
Related
I am managing a build lab and have several products/branches to provide service to and I would like my build machines not to be specialized to any one product/branch.
The scenario I would like to have is that souce and all tools needed to build it are checked into source control and just sync and build with some prep/env setup before hand via script.
This is very doable with Visual Studio and many other tools. Is it possible with Xcode? Has anyone gotten a scenario like this to work?
Some system components may need to be shared. Since this is such an atypical scenario, documentation will not be readily available. I would suggest asking on the Xcode-users mailing list that Apple maintains, as you may get a more certain answer.
I doubt if this possible. There are 2 possible ways I know of.
First, which we also follow in our project:
Source code for all projects in checked in the common repository.
A remote server is configured to point to this repository.
Remote server has XCode pre-installed. A pre-written scripts with steps including workspace cleanup, checkout fresh code, build the code, package the output is already feed into the remote server. Of these XCode related commands are using xcodebuild.
Remote server can be configured in 3 ways: a) Build the source code on every checkin, b) Build the source code triggered by user, c) Scheduled building of the source code.
Build results are emailed to the configured email addresses.
Second way is the continuous integration with MAC OS X server.
Just in case you found out the exact system config you are looking for, please post an answer here to enlighten us as well.
I've just implemented build and deploy process which consists of java files, ant script and cmd files. In the process, a release manager will have to check out source, hit the build.cmd button and then carry a zip file over to a server.
I am wondering if it is worthwhile to make a GUI for it? So that the release manager does not need to check out source manually for example?
How do I start? I have quite limited knowledge of javax, but I very much like to learn.
Thanks,
Sarah
This sounds like something that could be handled by Hudson. It can check out source, run Ant scripts, etc., saving you the trouble of maintaining a GUI. I'd give that a shot before rolling your own.
I have helped develop the build process at my current company. The way we currently do it is with a script file. It checks out the latest code from the stable branch of our repository, performs some steps to get some data from a database (such as static SQL data that needs to be loaded at deployment), then compresses everything. The file is then distributed to our production servers and then the setup routine is executed. Everything is automatic and the script is written in Python. Python is great for these types of things because of the sheer number of libraries it has to help the developer.
Perhaps it may be useful to build a GUI for your deployment procedure -- typically this would be useful if the deployment requires user interaction to make decisions, such as "Which server shall I deploy to?", etc. But, if it's just a matter of doing things automatically, then a script file's the way to go. Choose your favourite language and dive in -- I of course recommend Python.
If you'd like to learn how to make a simple GUI in Java (since that seems to be what your company is familiar with), you should check out the stuff at this site:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/uiswing/index.html
I learned everything I know about Java from that site. The section on GUI programming is great.
Best of luck!
Shad
As a follow up to one of my previous posts 'Using Version Control for Home Development', I am now asking about opinions as regards using a Build Server for a pet project.
Lately I have been reading about this 'Build Servers' concept, and I have looked at applications such as Maven and CruiseControl.Net.
And thus I ask, how feasible is it to use something like CruiseControl.Net for my home pet projects?
Reason I ask is that I think that these Build Servers are mainly aimed for team projects...but then again, I'm still very new to this Automated Build process.
Keep in mind that most of the time, these pet projects are only handled by one man, not a team.
So should I look more into this concept for the sake of using at home, or should I just get some practice on it for experience's sake?
[EDIT]
Although I thank you all for your answers as regards alternatives to CC.Net and such, no one has yet really tackled the issue of whether it is feasible or not to implement a Build System for Home Development ?
It is completely feasible to implement a build server for your home projects. I've implemented CC.Net for my home projects myself and it is pretty easy to do so, even for the first time. I would say the learning curve (depending on your experience) is less than a day to get your first project up and building, though there is always the longer tail on that curve as you dig into some of the more interesting details.
The question to me is more one of the motivation for continuous integration on these projects. If you are using "Home Project" synonomous with "Throw-away Project", there probably isn't much point in going to the trouble of CI unless you are using it specifically as a CI learning excercise.
However, assuming these are not throw-away projects you are talking about, I've found (in addition to the more obvious benefits of automation) that implementing CI helps reduce the overhead involved in coming back to a project you've walked away from for some period of time. Of course, unit tests are the most valuable asset in this regard, but the combination of unit tests with an automated build/deployment process really allows you to focus on the new and changed requirements when you come back to a project after having set it down for a while.
Additionally, as mghie points out in the comments to this answer, "CI will give even greater benefit for home projects if they build upon each other, so changes in one project could cause the build to break in others."
My advice, just do it once so you have a clearer picture of what is involved and the benefits you might reap and drawbacks you might incur. Then make the decision for yourself as to whether or not it is worth continuing to do. Like I said, the learning curve is reasonably low so the investment you will have to make in just giving it a try shouldn't be the reason not to.
Nutshell: Feasible - Yes, Desirable for home projects - Quite Possibly, Worth further investigation - Definitely, Investment - Relatively low
As an alternative to CC.Net, I recommend you to give a look to TeamCity, is really easy to setup and get it up and running.
Related question:
Best Continuous Integration Setup for a solo developer (.NET)
i installed CC.net months ago it took me a whole night to configure it and create the xml configurations and i have no regrets about it, it smoothly integrates with SVN, Nunit, Nant or Msbuild. you should try it only if it is to gain experience
Take a look at Hudson its very easy. You need to just deploy in Tomcat or any other servlet you use container. Once up every configuration can be done using browser. Hudson supports maven, ant etc and supports all the major SCMs. I have been using hudson for the past one year and not faced any trouble.
CC.NET is very feasible, in fact with the free cost and wide ranging supported actions. Not to mention the fact that since you can get the source code you can modify it to you needs I could not imagine anything better. I read the other compliants about how difficult it is to set up, but to be honest I had my first simple TFS/VS2005 project up within an hour. Just remember if you run into any issues or snags CC.NET has a pretty active google groups for Users and Devs who would be willing to help you through any gotchas.
I love CC.NET and I'm a big fan of CI, but I have to ask: with only one developer on the project, what integration scenarios exist? Wouldn't you just build the entire project in Visual Studio, negating the need for CI?
I would agree that CC.NET is a great option for local/home development. I wanted to add that it does not require an SCM tool in order to make it work. There is a file system watcher plugin that will just monitor for a file change. That way you don't have to have a check-in in order for it to execute. Also you don't have to wait for the CI cycle to complete, it's much like having F6 run everytime except for the IDE doesn't use all it's resources, you can keep coding away. If it breaks, you can choose to investigate or just ignore. There is no one way to do CI.
If you do create unit tests, having that constantly execute against your code on every save certainly has some advantages in early problems. Using CCTray allows you to see it, but not be intruded upon. My 2 cents.
Finally, setting it up the first time can be a little tough, but you can tweak out a Visual Studio C# template or whatever you desire to automatically configure your CI setup with the least amount of information required by the user.
I've been using nosetests for the last few months to run my Python unit tests.
It definitely does the job but it is not great for giving a visual view of what tests are working or breaking.
I've used several other GUI based unit test frameworks that provide a visual snap shot of the state of your unit tests as well as providing drill down features to get to detailed error messages.
Nosetests dumps most of its information to the console leaving it the developer to sift through the detail.
Any recommendations?
You can use rednose plugin to color up your console. The visual feedback is much better with it.
I've used Trac + Bitten for continuous integration, it was fairly complex setup and required substantial amount of time to RTFM, set up and then maintain everything but I could get nice visual reports with failed tests and error messages and graphs for failed tests, pylint problems and code coverage over time.
Bitten is a continuous integration plugin for Trac. It has the master-slave architecture. Bitten master is integrated with and runs together with Trac. Bitten slave can be run on any system that communicate with master. It would regularly poll master for build tasks. If there is a pending task (somebody has commited something recently), master will send "build recipe" similar to ant's build.xml to slave, slave would follow the recipe and send back results. Recipe can contain instructions like "check out code from that repository", "execute this shell script", "run nosetests in this directory".
The build reports and statistics then show up in Trac.
I know this question was asked 3 years ago, but I'm currently developing a GUI to make nosetests a little easier to work with on a project I'm involved in.
Our project uses PyQt which made it really simple to start with this GUI as it provides all you need to create interfaces. I've not been working with Python for long but its fairly easy to get to grips with so if you know what you're doing it'll be perfect providing you have the time.
You can convert .UI files created in the PyQt Designer to python scripts with:
pyuic4 -x interface.ui -o interface.py
And you can get a few good tutorials to get a feel for PyQt here. Hope that helps someone :)
I like to open a second terminal, next to my editor, in which I just run a loop which re-runs nosetests (or any test command, e.g. plain old unittests) every time any file changes. Then you can keep focus in your editor window, while seeing test output update every time you hit 'save' in your editor.
I'm not sure what the OP means by 'drill down', but personally all I need from the test output is the failure traceback, which of course is displayed whenever a test fails.
This is especially effective when your code and tests are well-written, so that the vast majority of your tests only take milliseconds to run. I might run these fast unit tests in a loop as described above while I edit or debug, and then run any longer-running tests manually at the end, just before I commit.
You can re run tests manually using Bash 'watch' (but this just runs them every X seconds. Which is fine, but it isn't quite snappy enough to keep me happy.)
Alternatively I wrote a quick python package 'rerun', which polls for filesystem changes and then reruns the command you give it. Polling for changes isn't ideal, but it was easy to write, is completely cross-platform, is fairly snappy if you tell it to poll every 0.25 seconds, doesn't cause me any noticeable lag or system load even with large projects (e.g. Python source tree), and works even in complicated cases (see below.)
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/rerun/
A third alternative is to use a more general-purpose 'wait on filesystem changes' program like 'watchdog', but this seemed heavyweight for my needs, and solutions like this which listen for filesystem events sometimes don't work as I expected (e.g. if Vim saves a file by saving a tmp somewhere else and then moving it into place, the events that happen sometimes aren't the ones you expect.) Hence 'rerun'.
What is the initial cost of setting up CruiseControl?
The key point here is not the time you have to invest in setting up CruiseControl. You can do this in an hour or so. The question is weather do you have a code repository (SVN, TFS) and a build script ready (something - MSBuild script or so - that will clean, rebuild, test and deploy your app). If not you will have to invest some time in that - depending on how complicated your project is - but surely it will take a lot more time than setting up a CruiseControl server.
Not more than two to three hours worth if you're new to it. The first time I used it I had something that checked out the latest version from subversion, compiled it using MSBuild and then upload it in less than that time.
I'd recommend Hudson over CruiseControl any day of the week. I can't think of anything CruiseControl can do which Hudson doesn't do (better). Especially the web-based frontend is far superior. You can run Hudson directly on your machine (using JNLP) and have your project setup in minutes.
It takes a little while to get it up and running - but you can get a solution to build using the task to build you .sln file in less than a day if you're a complete newbie on the subject.
It gets a little more complicated when you add unit testing in various frameworks, costumizing the dashboard, labelling your builds etc but it's a matter of days, not weeks to get anything up and running.
Software - free.
Hardware - cost depends. If you only want to run nightly it can probably share server space with something else. We use a dedicated server with builds every 15 mins.
Set up time - Once learnt you're looking at a few hours to set up a new server. If you're new to CC allow a day or two.
If you've never used an integration server before you're going to have a learning curve for the entire team - allow a few weeks.
We've recently moved to a new server and we set up a fresh installation - it took a few hours. That's for four projects, two different source control providers, and includes custom tasks like reporting and building help files.
I'd recoccomend a dedicated machine for cruise control, it doesn't have to be amazingly powerful but bear in mind it had to be able to compile your code.
We used an old developer's machine, which was put aside after an upgrade.
As far as the cost in time a day should have you up and running.
How do you define 'cost'? It's free to download so there's no monetary cost.
In terms of time it should take between 1/2 - 1 day, depending on how complicated your configuration is.
If you have a simple project with no dependencies then a couple of hours. If you are actually doing 'integration' of many projects with many dependencies then several weeks and possibly code changes. IMHO CC.Net doesn't scale well to large numbers of projects...
You should be able to set it up in about 3 hours and it's totally free.
Still you can spend money on external tools like Simian etc, but that's totally optional. Setting up CCnet really is a matter of going through the configuration documentation and that's it.
I blogged about my experiences with CCnet before: http://www.tigraine.at/2008/10/08/another-take-on-contiuous-integration/
Jay Flowers runs a project called CI Factory which enables you to put together a CruiseControl.NET installation with optional modules in no time at all.
http://jayflowers.com/joomla/
Also, you might wish to listen to the .NET rocks podcast interview with him:
http://www.dnrtv.com/default.aspx?showID=64