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).
Related
I've been wondering how you go about doing CI-style testing when you're dealing with physical devices.
I imagine you have a suite of tests, and a pool of devices against which they can be run.
Additionally:
Some tests may require specific device models.
Some tests may require the use of more than one device.
What CI servers have support for this?
I'm still interested in those which have partial support, either natively or through plugins, as I'm interested in how it's done.
Continuous Integration enables a team integrate & test their work frequently. Automated builds are meant to compile, link and run unit-tests. You want your CI to run fast, especially if you run it at every check-in. That is why you would want to restrict CI activities to simple confirmation of the build and unit tests alone. What you're asking seems more-along the lines of quality assurance (QA) testing...and having QA failures mixed into your CI efforts would detract development efforts from progressing.
As such, I'm more under the impression activities associated with CI are not dependent upon the final physical machine said work may eventually be migrated to.
Now...this doesn't mean you CAN'T take the CI-compiled package and run it against some final target-machine....but again...that is really considered a seperate activity.
This seems to be re-enforced in the following article by Martin Fowler.
Notice he doesn't talk about the final targeted devices...only the build machine.
I can suggest Test Manager that is part of the TFS suite of Microsoft. I have not tried it with many different environments apart from windows based though I know there are many connectors. For windows based environments I believe it will satisfy most needs.
I use it for nightly builds to perform smoke tests (Turn it on, see if any smoke comes out) but you have to be careful to keep tests small in order to have them finished in a matter of hours and not days, if you want it to be part of your CI.
Then when you have a good enough quality you can proceed onto regression tests and integration tests if needed.
I wouldn't get too caught up in what a CI system is supposed to do or not do. Instead I would focus on the problem you are trying to solve. It sounds like that problem is to facilitate development on multiple platforms. You can use the concept of Continuous Integration and add to it successfully address the issue. I know, because I've done it in the past.
I implemented a build system for code that needed to compile and test successfully on 4 different platforms (nt, wince, linux-arm, linux-x86). The CI server would:
Used a linux and winnt build server compilation (and cross compilation)
The compiled tests and supporting libs would then be copied to the appropriate devices and an automated test run executed.
After the test suite was completed the log would be copied back, (or it was written to a network mounted fs)
If the test suite was successful we would tag the source, and package the libs and executables.
This same platform was reused for developer verification before commits. Developers would run a partial build and test (only updated source would be recompiled and those tests rerun). The CI would execute a full build (from scratch).
Our build were pretty fast because we had a proper DAG for build dependencies. This allowed for concurrent compilation within a platform build. Each platform build was also concurrent. As a result partial builds took a few seconds, full builds took ~30 minutes. Our build servers were quite beefy (optimized for fast compiles) and the codebase was of moderate size (I don't remember the stats).
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.
We have a large collection of nAnt scripts that build our various products. They almost all have the following structure:
Erase old working copy.
Check out complete fresh copy from version control.
Increment build number in appropriate file (custom nAnt task).
Run static analysis (StyleCop, Perl scripts)
Build solution using Visual Studio - ends up with MSI output.
Run unit tests (nUnit, JSUnit)
Run static analysis (FxCop)
Zip up deliverables (MSI, readme, etc) into well-named package.
Put this zip package onto a server share.
Email results to team.
From our research, it seems that CruiseControl(.net?)/Hudson/BuildBot would only add the trigger that causes the build, which at the moment is double-clicking the nAnt script over Remote Desktop and a status dashboard.
Are we missing anything else significant?
The question is subjective, and thus so is my answer.
In the projects I've automated before, CruiseControl was used essentially for that one purpose: so we didn't have to remote into the build machine and trigger builds. The CI part is that CruiseControl will monitor the repository for you, triggering builds at the intervals you define.
It also gave us the dashboard from which could trigger releases, or go back to examine logs and artefacts from past builds.
For us that was enough benefit to implement CruiseControl. Perhaps it doesn't "seem" like much until you've finished it and a month later realized you haven't had to touch your build system because it's off silently and thanklessly doing its thing for you.
A Continuous Integration server such as Hudson would do 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 for you so that you don't have to implement them yourself. If you've already got it working that's maybe not a huge improvement for your current project but it makes things simpler for subsequent projects. It would also, as you mention, take care of when to trigger the build.
Hudson will also chart various trends over time, such as test coverage, build time, static analysis results. You can also have more sophisticated notifications than just e-mail if you choose.
The most important thing it gives you is visual feedback (the bigger the screen is better). When you have one machine, dedicated to displaying buildresults, visible to all team members, it works like a catalyst to people see that something is wrong and fixes it.
If you have something like that standing in a place where your boss can see it and ask you "Hey Wilkinson, why is this screen red?" will you fix your build faster?
Thay all look the same, you can pick whatever you think fits your needs, just have one setup and running.
Our software is built on linux and windows platforms. Depending on the preference of the developer a contribution is developed and tested on either platform and then committed to our subversion repository. It then turns out that the contribution doesn't build on the other platform, and a fix has to be made. The fix on the other platform may again break the build on the original platform, and so on.
I'd rather see that a contribution is built (and regression tested) on the other platform as well before being committed. We have a continuous build server (CruiseControl), but that server builds from the repository. I am looking for a solution where the continuous build server builds on the other platform as a pre-commit check and then commits the stuff if the build and test succeed.
Any suggestions?
Teamcity handles pre-tested commit, you may be able to do something with the new build chaining features in 4.0( http://www.jetbrains.com/teamcity/features/newfeatures.html ). Agents are cross platform and can be configured to only run particular bits of the build, so could possibly be configured to only run a subset of tests.
Note that I haven't actually done this :)
It might be easier to have two branches, one where people checkin, and another which they merge their changes into after they have passed continuous integration.
Matheiu Godlewski has made a good suggestion at the CruiseControl wiki
If you combine his suggestion with the veto element, I think you should be set.
We used a custom build and test rig that could remotely deploy to multiple OSes (and multiple Database products on multiple OSes). This was done as a nightly build with a rule that you fix your bugs the next morning.
No entirely continuous then, but that's potentially a lot of work to do on a pre-commit hook. Especially if your source control repository locks the affected files for the duration of the pre-commit hook execution.
I think there's a difference between a continuous integration test that runs during the day, per-commit, and a system integration test that runs nightly.
Douglas Leeder suggested an "integration" branch - the nice thing about it is that it's possible to automate. If the tests pass - merge to the 'trunk'.
Some version control systems (e.g. bzr/hg/git) make this easier than others, but it's possible on most.
Right now a project I'm working on has reached a level of complexity that requires more than a few steps (actually its become arcane!) to produce a complete/usable product. And unfortunately we didn't start out with a Continuos Integration mindset, so as you can imagine its kind of painful at times, and at others I can easily waste half a day trying to get a clean/tested build.
Anyways as any HUGE project it consists of many components in many different languages (not only enterprise style Java or C# for example), as well as many graphical, and textual resources. Now the problem is that when I look for Continuos Integration, I always find best practices and techniques that assume one is starting a new project, from the ground up. However this isn't a new project, so I was wondering what are some good resources to proactively start migrating from Arcane Integration towards Continuos Integration :)
Thanks in advance!
Here it is in two simple (hah) steps.
Go for the repeatable build:
Use source control, get all code checked in.
Establish and document all tools used to build (mainly, which compiler version). Have a repeatable deployment and set up process for these tools.
Establish and document clearly any resources which are necessary to build, but are not checked in (third party installations, service packs, etc). Have a repeatable deployment and set up process for these dependencies.
Before commiting to source control, developers must
update their working copy
successfully build
run and pass automated tests
These steps can be done 1 at a time, sort of a path to follow. You'll get benefits at each stage. For example, if you aren't using source control at all, just getting the code into source control (without anything else) is a big step forward. Also, if there are no automated tests, then developers can't run them - but they can still get the prior commits and get the compiler to check their work.
If you can do all of these, you'll get to a nice sane place.
The goals are repeatable build processes and developers that are plugged in to how their changes affect the build and other developers.
Then you can reap the bonuses by establishing higher compliance:
Developers establish a frequent commit habit. Code that is in the working copy should never be more than 1 day old.
Automated build process monitors source control for check-ins and gets the results to a place where the users can accept them (such as a test environment, a preview website, or even simply placing an .exe where the user can find it).
The same way you eat an elephant (one bite at a time) ;-) Continuous integration requires an automated build. Start with that. Automate the building of each piece. Ant or NAnt is a great way to do this. Have each component's construction be a NAnt task. Then your entire system build can aggregate those individual tasks.
From there, you can add tasks for deployment, for unit testing, etc. If you want to use a CI technology, you can wire it up to your NAnt build.
I would start by first writing down all the steps it takes you to do the build and test manually. After that you at least have a guide for doing it the old way, and writing things down gives you the chance to look at it as a complete process.
Then look for parts to script.
Ideally you want to trigger a build and test from a code commit and only rebuild and retest the changed parts, with perhaps a full build and test nightly or weekly. You'll need log files or database entries and reports on the build success or lack of it.
You'll want to search out and evaluate pre-built products and open-source build-your-own kits. You can certainly write all the scripting and reporting yourself, but it will take a while and you'll probably end up with a just barely good enough reporting system since your job is coding the product, not coding the build system. :-)
I would guess that migrating isn't really an option--Half-ass solutions will only make it worse.
My approach would be to take one creative engineer who understands the build process, sit him down and say "Fix this". Give him a week or two.
The end goal would be a process that runs beginning to end with a single make command.
I also recommend an automated "Setup" procedure where you simply do a checkout and run a batch file from a network share to install and build all your tools. The amount of time this will save overall is staggering if you bring in new programmers. Most projects take one to three days to get set up on a new computer--and it's always the "new" programmer who doesn't know what's going on doing the installs on his own system...
In short: Incrementally
Choose a framework that will work across the diverse range of projects.
One by one, add components to the framework.
If you are not familiar with the framework, tackle a couple of the easier components first, to reduce risk of screwing up.
If you do understand the framework, tackle some of the more difficult and/or commonly built components first, so your team (and management) will appreciate the benefits early, and support the effort more.
Be sure to have a plan to include all of your components, because that's when the full benefit will be realized.
Bring your team with you; make sure you have consensus that this is going to be valuable, or people won't maintain it as the components change.