I am tasked to improve quality and implement TeamCity for continuous integration. My experience with TeamCity is very limited - I use mostly TFS myself and have some experience with CC.NET.
A lot should happen within a build process... actually the build is already pushed into three different configurations that will run one after the next.
My main problem is that in each of those I actually would need to start multiple runners. For example, the first build step shall consist of:
The generation of new AssemblyInfo.cs files for consistent in assembly numbering
The actual compilation
A partial unit test run (all tests that run fast and check core functionality)
An FxCop run
A StyleCop run
The current version of TeamCity only allows to configure one runner ... which leaves me stuck with a lot of things.
How you would approach this? My current idea is going towards using the MsBuild runner for everything and basically start my own MsBuild based script which then does all the things, pretty much the way that TFS handles it (and the same way i did things back in the cc.net way with my own Nant build script).
On a further problem the question is how to present statistical information, for example from unit tests running in different stages (build configurations). We have some further down that take some time to run and want that to run in a 2nd or 3rd step (the latest for example testing database generation code which, including loading base data, takes about 15+ minutes to run). OTOH we would really like test results to be somehow consolidated.
Anyone any ideas?
Thanks.
TeamCity 6.0 allows multiple build steps for a single build configuration. Isn't it what you're looking for?
You'll need to script this out, at least parts of it. TeamCity provides some nice UI based config for some of your needs, but not all. Here's my suggestion:
Create an msbuild script to handle your first two bullet points, AssemblyInfo generation and compilation. Configure the msbuild runner to run your script, and to run your tests. Collect your assemblies as artifacts.
Create a second build configuration for FxCop. Trigger it from the first build. Give it an 'artifact dependency' on the first build, which is how it gets a hold of your dlls.
For StyleCop, TC doesn't support it out of the box like it does FxCop. Add it to your msbuild script manually, and have it produce an html report (which TeamCity can then display).
You need to take a look at the Dependencies functionality in the TeamCity. This feature allows you to create a sequence of build configurations. In other words, you need to create a build configuration for each step and then link all them as dependencies.
For consolidating test results please take a loot at the Artifact Dependencies. It might help.
Related
I was wondering if someone would be able to explain what Build runners do and also what i would need to use for just a static HTML / CSS / JS site, or even an already compiled .NET site.
I will be hooking up each project to its equiv SVN and grabbing updates from there, but not 100% sure what the build runners do or which i should use as technically i dont need to build the site.
Sorry it may be too much to answer but i am just struggling to get my head round Team City
Thank you
Build runners are just a process for a specific task, for example the MSBuild runner is set up by putting information into specific fields which it then uses to call MSBuild on the target build agent. You could just as easily use the Command Line runner and build up the MSBuild run command manually.
Build runner is a part of TeamCity that allows integration with a
specific build tool (Ant, MSBuild, Command line, etc.). In a build
configuration, the build runner defines how to run a build and report
its results. Each build runner has two parts:
server-side settings that are configured through the web UI
agent-side part that executes a build on agent
You need to choose your runner depending on the task that you want to do and the technology that you have wrapped your project in. If there is no runner for your specific task then you can use the lowest common denominator which would be the Command Line runner.
The way I approach this would be to see how I can achieve what I want to from my own environment be that calling a rake, MSBuild or batch file. I then see how I can then apply that to a tool. Do not create a process around a tool but choose a tool that fits to your process.
we're trying to improve our Jenkins setup. So far we have two directories: /plugins and /tests.
Our project is a multi-module project of Eclipse Plugins. The test plugins in the /tests folder are fragment projects dependent on their corresponding productive code plugins in /plugins.
Until now, we had just one Jenkins job which checked out both /plugins and /tests, built all of them and produced the Surefire results etc.
We're now thinking about splitting the project into smaller jobs corresponding to features we provide. It seems that the way we tried to do it is suboptimal.
We tried the following:
We created a job for the core feature. This job checks out the whole /plugins and /tests directories and only builds the plugins the feature is comprised of. This job has a separate pom.xml which defines the core artifact and tells about the modules contained in the feature.
We created a separate job for the tests that should be run on the feature plugins. This job uses the cloned workspace from the core job. This job is to be run after the core feature is built.
I somehow think this is less than optimal.
For instance, only the core job can update the checked out files. If only the tests are updated, the core feature does not need to be built again, but it will be.
As soon as I have a feature which is dependent on the core feature, this feature would either need to use a clone of the core feature workspace or check out its own copy of /plugins and /tests, which would lead to bloat.
Using a cloned workspace, I can't update my sources. So when I have a feature depending on another feature, I can only do the job if the core feature is updated and built.
I think I'm missing some basic stuff here. Can someone help? There definitely is an easier way for this.
EDIT: I'll try to formulate what I think would ideally happen if everything works:
check if the feature components have changed (i.e. an update on them is possible)
if changed, build the feature
Build the dependent features, if necessary (i.e. check ob corresponding job)
Build the feature itself
if build successful, start feature test job
let me see the results of the test job in the feature job
Finally, the project job should
do a nightly build
check out all sources from /plugins and /tests
build all, test all, send results to Sonar
Additionally, it would be neat if the nightly build was unnecessary because the builds and test results of the projects' features would be combined in the project job results.
Is something like this possible?
Starting from the end of the question. I would keep a separate nightly job that does a clean check-out (gets rid of any generated stuff before check-out), builds everything from scratch, and runs all tests. If you aren't doing a clean build, you can't guarantee that what is checked into your repository really builds.
check if the feature components have changed (i.e. an update on them is possible)
if changed, build the feature
Build the dependent features, if necessary (i.e. check ob corresponding job)
Build the feature itself
if build successful, start feature test job
let me see the results of the test job in the feature job
[I am assuming that by "dependent features" in 1 you mean the things needed by the "feature" in 2.]
To do this, I would say that you have multiple jobs.
a job for every individual feature and every dependent feature that simply builds that feature. The jobs should be started by SCM changes for the (dependent) feature.
I wouldn't keep separate test jobs from compile jobs. It allows the possibility that successfully compiled code is never tested. Instead, I would rely on the fact that wen a build step fails in Jenkins, it normally aborts further build steps.
The trick is going to be in how you thread all of these together.
Let's say we have a feature and it's build job called F1 that is built on 2 dependent features DF1.1 and DF1.2, each with their own build jobs.
Both DF1.1 and DF1.2 should be configured to trigger the build of F1.
F1 should be configured to get the artifacts it needs from the latest successful DF1.1 and DF1.2 builds. Unfortunately, the very nice "Clone SCM" plugin is not going to be of much help here as it only pulls from one previous job. Perhaps one of the artifact publisher plugins might be useful, or you may need to add some custom build steps to put/get artifacts.
I am trying to create 1 package with multiple build configurations. The first will checkout the code, build it (Solution File configuration), and run nunit tests. If that succeeds, another will then build in release mode. If that succeeds, a final script witll package up the output, and mark it as an artifact.
The problem I'm having is that I don't know how to tell TeamCity not to create new directories for each step, and as a result, the steps are failing. Is there a setting for this? It seems like the dependencies tab would be an appropriate place to look, but I don't seem to understand the instructions, and my tinkering so far has been fruitless.
I basically skipped most of the TeamCity workflow, and instead used a scripting language to handle all of this. (I used Rake and Albacore, which I highly recommend for .net projects)
I'd caution you not to use powershell w/ TeamCity. You have to wrap everything in .bat file, which is fairly excruciating.
So the result, is that I have 1 checkout, and everything builds from this point. It's drastically cut down the amount of time required for the builds, though perhaps that wouldn't be the case if I had a lot of agents available.
I think I'm missing a valuable piece of understanding with TeamCity 5.0. Why is there a separate build runner for FxCop? I prefer that my build server run everything, at once (compile, run unit tests, FxCop, etc). The problem is, I don't see how to add more than a single Build Runner for a specific project, so it seems I have to add a second project to TeamCity with a dependency on another project that uses the sln2008 build runner, or I could simply go the long route and build everything out in MSBuild. Am I missing something that should be obvious? Is it possible to configure the sln2008 Build Runner to include FxCop code analysis?
I think most of the users want their builds with tests to be as fast as possible. Other things like coverage, code analysis, metrics most likely should not be run often. It is enough to run them once per day, because their value is statistics gathered over time.
As for multiple build runners per build configuraution feature - it is one of the most voted in our tracker: http://youtrack.jetbrains.net/issue/TW-3660?query=multiple+build+runners, it has very good chances to be implemented in the next versions.
Setting up an integration server, I’m in doubt about the best approach regarding using multiple tasks to complete the build. Is the best way to set all in just one big-job or make small dependent ones?
You definitely want to break up the tasks. Here is a nice example of CruiseControl.NET configuration that has different targets (tasks) for each step. It also uses a common.build file which can be shared among projects with little customization.
http://code.google.com/p/dot-net-reference-app/source/browse/#svn/trunk
I use TeamCity with an nant build script. TeamCity makes it easy to setup the CI server part, and nant build script makes it easy to do a number of tasks as far as report generation is concerned.
Here is an article I wrote about using CI with CruiseControl.NET, it has a nant build script in the comments that can be re-used across projects:
Continuous Integration with CruiseControl
The approach I favour is the following setup (Actually assuming you are in a .NET project):
CruiseControl.NET.
NANT tasks for each individual step. Nant.Contrib for alternative CC templates.
NUnit to run unit tests.
NCover to perform code coverage.
FXCop for static analysis reports.
Subversion for source control.
CCTray or similar on all dev boxes to get notification of builds and failures etc.
On many projects you find that there are different levels of tests and activities which take place when someone does a checkin. Sometimes these can increase in time to the point where it can be a long time after a build before a dev can see if they have broken the build with a checkin.
What I do in these cases is create three builds (or maybe two):
A CI build is triggered by checkin and does a clean SVN Get, Build and runs lightweight tests. Ideally you can keep this down to minutes or less.
A more comprehensive build which could be hourly (if changes) which does the same as the CI but runs more comprehensive and time consuming tests.
An overnight build which does everything and also runs code coverage and static analysis of the assemblies and runs any deployment steps to build daily MSI packages etc.
The key thing about any CI system is that it needs to be organic and constantly being tweaked. There are some great extensions to CruiseControl.NET which log and chart build timings etc for the steps and let you do historical analysis and so allow you to continously tweak the builds to keep them snappy. It's something that managers find hard to accept that a build box will probably keep you busy for a fifth of your working time just to stop it grinding to a halt.
We use buildbot, with the build broken down into discrete steps. There is a balance to be found between having build steps be broken down with enough granularity and being a complete unit.
For example at my current position, we build the sub-pieces for each of our platforms (Mac, Linux, Windows) on their respective platforms. We then have a single step (with a few sub steps) that compiles them into the final version that will end up in the final distributions.
If something goes wrong in any of those steps it is pretty easy to diagnose.
My advice is to write the steps out on a whiteboard in as vague terms as you can and then base your steps on that. In my case that would be:
Build Plugin Pieces
Compile for Mac
Compile for PC
Compile for Linux
Make final Plugins
Run Plugin tests
Build intermediate IDE (We have to bootstrap building)
Build final IDE
Run IDE tests
I would definitely break down the jobs. Chances are you're likely to make changes in the builds, and it'll be easier to track down issues if you have smaller tasks instead of searching through one monolithic build.
You should be able to create one big job from the smaller pieces, anyways.
G'day,
As you're talking about integration testing my big (obvious) tip would be to make the test server built and configured as close as possible to the deployment environment as possible.
</thebloodyobvious> (-:
cheers,
Rob
Break your tasks up into discrete goal/operations, then use a higher-level script to tie them all together appropriately.
This makes your build process easier to understand for other people (you're documenting as you go so anyone on your team can pick it up, right?), as well as increasing the potential for re-use. It's likely you won't reuse the high-level scripts (although this could be possible if you have similar projects), but you can definitely reuse (even if it's copy/paste) the discrete operations rather easily.
Consider the example of getting the latest source from your repository. You'll want to group the tasks/operations for retrieving the code with some logging statements and reference the appropriate account information. This is the sort of thing that's very easy to reuse from one project to the next.
For my team's environment, we use NAnt since it provides a common scripting environment between dev machines (where we write/debug the scripts) and the CI server (since we just execute the same scripts in a clean environment). We use Jenkins to manage our builds, but at their core each project is just calling into the same NAnt scripts and then we manipulate the results (ie, archive the build output, flag failing tests etc).