The development environment is obviously for developing the web app locally.
The production is the operational public website with everything as the final version.
what is the testing environment and what is the difference between that and staging environment?
and if its what I think it is, why not just deploy to an alternate website address and use that?
The testing environment is an environment in which Rails will perform the tests that you write. This is a slimmer environment in which certain things are disabled such as sending emails, and loading the asset pipeline. The database in the test environment is also generally not persisted between test runs.
For more information on how and why to test your rails applications check out the Rails Guides. If you are not currently testing your applications, you should really start as it can save days of hunting for broken code, and many many headaches down the road.
Staging environments are setup to mimic most of the functionality of a production environment. The staging 'stack' should be as similar to the production environment as possible; e.g. same hardware, same OS, same installed packages, etc.
Things I generally limit when setting up a staging environment are email sending, I will use a mail interceptor to send all email to my address. Think of the staging environment as a sandbox in which to test changes to your production environment, without actually testing in production.
For most small apps, a staging environment is not always necessary. However, for a large, enterprise level application it is a must as you generally cannot afford any downtime for your production system. With the staging environment you can catch those changes before they are pushed to production.
Hope this helps.
Related
Given a development pipeline with playground, staging, and production environments, which environment is most appropriate for integration tests? What is the best practice around this?
My thinking is that it should be in the playground environment, to get the earliest results (ie shift left). However, I have also seen some examples of re-running integration tests for each environment.
Is there value in running integration tests multiple times, or does it make more sense to just run it once in an appropriate environment?
There might not be a standard best practice, it also depends on the application and the testing setup you have.
You can skip running tests on the production environment as it will affect the performance for your users. Also it is not a good idea to put testing data into your production environment. To test out whether the functionality is working fine on production, you can create an environment which mimics the production environment.
Since different environment like QA/Staging can have different environment configuration and different CPU/Memory settings, it is a good idea to run the integration tests on multiple environments.
If the staging environment is an isolated environment for testing by testers and also sandbox is an isolated environment for testing, So what are those differences?
Actually I could not find any useful and clear information on.
Good question. Given the background you provide they appear the same. This is true in that they are both isolated from the production environments. They should not contain production data. etc. However there are a number of differences particularly in how they are used.
Staging environment
A good staging environment will be a close replica (less the data) of the production system. It is used to test upgrades and patches prior to going to production. This means that it should be a controlled environment where the engineers responsible for the production deployment are allowed to test the rollout instructions.
Access restrictions in a staging environment should be as close to production as possible. I.E. deployment by those engineers who are responsible for deployment. No root (or privileged access for developers).
Sandbox environment
As the name suggests this typically a playground for the engineering team. It has less restrictions than a staging environment because it is designed to allow the engineers to try out things easily and quickly. A sandbox environment is likely to drift away from the production environment as engineers try out different versions of the product, dependancies, plugins etc.
Access to a sandbox environment typically allows privileged access to any engineer (developer, QA etc.) who are working on the project for easy / quick deployment and debugging.
Currently at my company, we have three servers: Development , Staging, and Production.
When a new feature is requested, it is developed in the 'Development' environment (server/VM). Once the developer is satisfied that it's complete, they move it to the Staging environment and test it. Once it is fully tested, it is moved to the Production server.
The problem is that the team is very small and it's hard to manually maintain the Staging and Production Environment. We need the staging environment to be exactly like the Production environment, and it is time consuming task to do that manually everytime.
Is there a software out there that can help? or a process?
One method we thought could be possible is Cloning the Production Environment every time and use it as Staging. Once the feature is tested, merge the two VM's. But that might take a lot of time and cause downtimes on production environment.
Any hints/suggestions?
Thanks
I would suggest you to have a look at an environment provisioning tool like Ansible, Puppet or Chef. It requires some time to get used to it but after that you'll be able to auto provision any system (be it a server or just a developer machine) with just a few terminal/command line commands.
hey everyone.
ok, a little background to the project... I've released a program to a couple clients that use a WCF service for them to connect to our servers in the office. Being that i used the clickOnce setup utility in VS2010, when i am doing testing on a VM i publish to a different spot on the server as to not give untested code to clients. However, the WCF service only gets published to one place for both versions (development and release).
What i'm working on now requires a change to the WCF service as a couple additional things get transferred between client and server. If I publish the modified WCF, will it affect the current clients, or will i be able to test my development version with no worries? I'm afraid i already know that the answer will be, yes it will affect them.
thanks!
dave k.
Isolation of test, dev and production:
Whenever you need to test something or put it in production, you need a separate environment. So you need a separate machine to develop and do local testing, another to test the checked-in code (for use by a tester, a customer etc.), and another to run the production code -- at the very least.
If your service interacts with other software, especially with software that gets updated a lot, this is an important way to make sure that you don't introduce side-effects and that what you build will be compatible with what is running on your production server.
So: isolate and make your test environment a "clone" of your production environment.
Two versions in parallel:
If you update your own code for customer X, you can still host a previous version of your production code for customer Y on another (virtual?) server. Customer Y can then choose when to switch to your new version, after which you can take the old code out of production.
You should create a seperate VM for your test environment.
Say you want to create a new environment for a team of developers to build a large website on a LAMP stack.
I am not interested in the knowledge needed for coding the website (php,js,html,css,etc.). This stuff I know.
I am interested in what you need to know to setup a good environment and workflow with test server, production sever, version control, backups, etc.
What would be a good learning path?
As someone who has lead this process at several companies, my recommendation is to gradually raise the "maturity" of your organisation as a software factory by incrementally consolidating a set of practices in an order that makes sense to your needs. The order I tend to follow (starting with things that I consider more basic, to the more advanced stuff):
Version control - control your sources. I used to work with SVN but I'm gradually migrating my team to Mercurial (I agree to meagar's recommendation for a distributed VCS). A great HG tutorial is in hginit
Establish a clear release process, label your releases in VCS, do clean builds in a controlled environment, test and release from these.
Defect tracking - be systematic about your bugs and feature requests. I tend to use Trac because it gives me a more or less complete solution for project management plus a wiki that I use as a knowledge base. But you have choices galore (Jira, Bugzilla, etc...)
Establish routine Testing practices. Unit tests e.g. by using one of the xUnit frameworks (make it a habit to at least write unit tests for new functions you write and old code you modify) and Integration / System tests (for webapps use some tool like Selenium).
Make your tests run frequently, as a part of an automated build process
Eventually, write your tests before you code (Test-Driven Development) and strive to increase coverage.
Go a step forward in your build/test/release cycle by setting up some continuous integration system (to make sure your build and tests are run regularly, at least nightly). I recently started using Hudson and it is great for our Java/Maven projects, but you can use it for any other build process as well
In terms of testing environments, I agree with meagar's recommendations. We have these layers:
Test at developers workstations (should contain a full setup to run your code)
Staging environment: clone your production environment as closely as possible and deploy and run your app there. We also use VMs.
Production preview: we deploy our app to the production servers with production data but in a different "preview" URL for our internal use only. We run part of our automated Integration tests against this server, and do some additional manual testing with internal users
Production - and keep fingers crossed ;)
In terms of backup, at least for your source code, distributed VCS give you the advantage that your full repos are replicated in many machines, thus minimising the risk of data loss (which is much more critical with centralised repos as is the case with SVN).
Before you do anything else, ask your developers what they want out of a test/production environment. You shouldn't be making this decision, they should. The answer to this depends entirely on what kind of workflow they're familiar with and what kind of software they'll be developing.
I'd personally recommend a distributed VCS like git or mercurial, local WAMP/LAMP stacks on each developer's workstation (shared "development" servers are silly) and a server running some testing VMs which are duplicates of your production environment. You can't ask for more specific advice than that without involving your developers.