We're currently using CruiseControl.NET as a continuous integration server for a number of ASP.NET web projects, but we're also evaluating TeamCity.
This is working great for our build server.
What we'd like to setup is a customer facing test server. I'm thinking that when we are happy for our latest development version to be released to the client for test, we could label it in SVN.
I'd then like a second build server to build this version ready for the client to see.
The question is this - is there any way to get either CruiseControl.NET or TeamCity to build only the latest labelled version of the code in a repository?
If anyone has any alternative suggestions, that'd also be greatly appreciated!
You could have a designated location or branch in your subversion repository e.g. \release then point the second TeamCity build server at that.
When your are happy with trunk then overwrite the existing location. The second build server will pick this up, build it, and even deploy it to a test server.
I don't think there's a way to do this directly in TeamCity. You can however configure your build trigger to filter on files and/or users. So, if you touch a given file to indicate release status in addition to or rather than labelling, you can use that.
The trigger filter could be, for example (untested):
+:/ReleaseVersion.cs
Related
I am setting up a CruiseControl.Net server. So far, it only builds a project (.Net website), and I kind-of know how to set up unit testing, code coverage, etc in the future.
What I will need to have soon is this:
The developers commit changes to SVN continually, thus CCNet builds often.
CCNet will publish the latest version to the development server, as soon as a commit is validated (with unit tests etc).
The project manager validates a specific version, in order to publish it to the pre-production server, and create a SVN tag from this revision.
The last point is where my problem lies: how exactly can I set up things so the project manager can, for instance, browse to the CCNet web dashboard, select a previous specific build, and says "this is the build I want to publish" ?
I believe that my thinking is flawed somewhere, but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe CCNet is not the right place to do these manipulations ?
In my mind, I can create a SVN tag using CCNet, and mostly work from the trunk, but maybe I can't ? Maybe it's the other way around, and I should add a CCNet project every time a tag is created under SVN ?
The final goal is that I want to automate the publication process: zip creation (for archiving), web.config modification (using Nant for instance), and website publication (using FTP).
In all these steps, I want to limit the manual intervention to the maximum. If I can avoid to add a new project to CCNet every time a tag or branch is created in SVN, that would be awesome.
Thanks for your help, and sorry if it's not very easy to read, but it's not very clear in my head either...
Since you can create any task, you should be able to achieve the goal, though unfortunately not out-of-the-box.
Since you use SVN, it all depends actually on revision. I think I'd create a separate project for your third scenario and added a parameter where PM would provide revision number. Then based on that I'd tag sources etc. in my own task.
Regarding the other points, I think this is similar. Recently for web projects we started using MSDeploy, and in each stage build the MSDeploy package was created. Then there was a separate build called Deploy, that when forced allows us to select which package we want to deploy using MSDeploy.
Having several environments, however, started a little bit like overkill for managing with CCNet, and I'll be looking into kwakee at some time.
I'm developing a project in C# using VS2010. I'm using svn 1.7 for my version control. What I want is a (FREE) tool that runs on the build server and checks for fresh commits. If the commit breaks the trunk then I want email notifications sent (I have a sendmail openbsd server on the network I can use). I also want this tool (or another tool) to run all my MSTest tests periodically and send emails if there is a failed test.
Any suggestions? I already built my own crude windows service to check for failed builds. But this was before I heard that tools for this sort of thing already exist. I could easily have this thing run all my tests with mstest.exe and then parse the xml results files, but I'm wondering if my time would be better spent just installing and configuring a proper tool for all of this.
There will be at most 4 developers.
Thanks in advance for the help!
I have some experience with TeamCity and Hudson/Jenkins.
I found TeamCity fairly easy to setup and it seems to meet your needs of:
MSTest integration out of the box
Email notifications
TeamCity is free for up to 20 build configurations and has an easy to use Web/GUI interface.
Have a look at CruiseControl.Net
built in support for Subversion
no limits on number of build configurations
email notifications using the 'Email Publisher'
web interface and desktop build notifications via CCTray
I am a complete noob to this so if there is a completely obvious answer by all means make fun and point and laugh then give the answer.
We use Visual Studio 2010 to compile our published website. I have a repository that I use for my source code and one which I publish the compiled code to. I then check out the publish repository on the testing server and once it tests good I check out the repository on my main server. This is fine and all but I am using Tortoise SVN and automating the commit. Problem is, I really need to wipe the publish SVN repository, then copy the files, then commit. I just can't get that to happen and have it still recognize it as a SVN repository. Suggestions?
First of all, don't put compiled code into your source repository. It's bad form.
Look at Jenkins as a build server. Jenkins can use the msbuild.exe command to build .NET projects using the .sln file your project creates.
When you do a commit in Subversion, Jenkins will automatically fire off the build. If you have NUnit tests, Jenkins will run those and give you the results. You can have Jenkins store the compiled files for you in its archive. If someone wants to install a particular build, they can directly download it from Jenkins without having to do a checkout in Subversion first.
Jenkins offer all of these advantages:
It shows you all the changes in your repository and what changed in each commit.
It can run all sorts of tests automatically for you.
You can mark builds that are released using the "Simple Promotion" plugin.
You can tag builds in Subversion directly in Jenkins without needing a command line or working directory.
It can alert the developers if a build fails due to bad code, or if testing fails. These alerts can be done via Email, instant messaging, phone text messages, Twitter, and many other ways. All it takes is the right plugin which Jenkins makes easy to install.
Jenkins can act as a release repository which makes it easy to find the release, what's in the release and why.
Jenkins integrates with Bamboo, ViewVC, and Sventon. These are web-based repository browsers. This way Jenkins not only shows you the file changed, but what changed in the file.
Jenkins is easy to use and install. Download it and give it a try.
Unless you have a hard and fast requirement which forces you to use two separate repositories, i'd suggest taking a look at SVN tagging and branching functionality.
http://tortoisesvn.net/docs/release/TortoiseSVN_en/tsvn-dug-branchtag.html
Having a repository for the published code really doesn't buy you anything. IMO, you would be better off with a bunch of zip files (one per release) with the date and SVN branch reflected in the name. DO have a changelog .txt file in the zip, and also check that into the repo.
Problem is, I really need to wipe the publish SVN repository, then copy the files, then commit.
You don't need wiping in repo. Just make commit to production repo with exported HEAD from dev-repo (post-commit hook for commit message)
And tags, yes, are more natural and bulletproof way.
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.
I am referred to Hudson today.
I have heard about continuous integration before, but I have no idea what the heck is a ci-server.
Hudson is really easy to install in Ubuntu and in several minutes I managed to set up an instance of it.
But I don't quite understand the workflow of a ci-server, or how am I supposed to use it?
Please tell me if you have experience about ci, thanks in advance.
Edit:
I am currently using Mercurial as my SCM, and I wonder what is the right way to use it with Hudson.
I have installed the Mercurial Plugin of Hudson, and I create a new job with a local repository. When I commit in the repository the Hudson job is built with the latest version of my source code.
If what I used is a remote repository, what's the workflow like?
Is it something like the following?
Set up a Hudson job with the repository
Developer makes a local clone of the repository
Developer commit and push changes
The remote repository update with the incoming changeset
Run a Hudson build
There may be something I misunderstanded at all, please help me point it out.
Continuous Integration is the process of "integrating software" continuously i.e. as frequently as possible (ultimately after each set of changes) to avoid any big-bang integration and all subsequent problems by getting immediate feedback.
To implement Continuous Integration, you first need to automate the build of your software (where build means of course compiling sources, packaging them, but also compiling tests, running the tests, running quality checks, etc, anything that will help to get feedback on the health of your code). Then you need to trigger the build on the latest version of the sources on a particular event (a change in the repository, a temporal event), to generate reports and to send notifications upon failure (by mail, twitter, etc).
And this is precisely the responsibility of a CI engine: offering trigger mechanisms, being able to get the latest version of the sources, running the build, generating and publishing reports, sending notifications. CI engines do implement this.
And because running a build is CPU and Disk intensive, CI engines usually run on a dedicated machine (or even a farm of machines if you want to build lots of projects).
Back to your question now. Once you've got Hudson running, configure it (Manage Hudson > Configure System): setup the JDK, build tools, etc. Then setup an Hudson Job and follow the steps: configure the location of the source repository, the build tool, the trigger, a notification channel and you're done (you can do more complex things but that's a start).
For more details on the setup, check:
The official Use Hudson guide for more details. << START HERE
Continuous Integration with Hudson - Tutorial.
Spot defects early with Continuous Integration.
Martin Fowler's overview of continuous integration is one of the canonical references. In my opinion, using automation to make sure your code base is healthy is one of the most useful things that you can set up.
Update Sorry that I didn't have much time earlier to expand on my reply. #Pascal_Thivent is right that in order to effectively use CI, you need to be able to automate your builds, tests, etc. CI is actually a good forcing function for this. For me, it's one of those little warning flags if I start to think that it would be too painful to put a build into Hudson. It means that something is not quite right.
What I like about Hudson is that it's flexible enough to accommodate different workflows. We use it for both builds / unit tests and releases. And it eliminates a lot of the worry about certain release procedures only working in one person's environment.
What I don't like about Hudson is that it is occasionally unstable when new builds break plugins. I've had a couple of upgrades (2 out of 10 or so) go bad because of incompatibilities. I do two things now:
I never upgrade my team's Hudson server to the latest and greatest right away. I generally only upgrade when there are significant new features, or bug fixes.
I now have a basic Hudson instance set up with all my plugins on a virtual machine with some dummy builds that I fire up to test out any new upgrades before doing it on the public server.