We are looking for a software to run our test cases automatically.
We want a software which will run on our server (or a commercial), which automatically gets the newest commit on github. Then compiles the commit of the project with CMake and run Ctest on our test cases. The results should then be visualized on a nice website.
I had a look at CDash, but as the documentation is so bad I did not even get it to get the latest commit from github.
So my questions are:
Is there a good tutorial to CDash? Except the bad wiki page.
What software is available for running tests on new commits to github, what are their advantages and drawbacks?
In answer to your second question, Jenkins is a robost and extensible continuous integration tool that can be integrated tightly with GitHub using a plug-in (or loosely using standard Git support). It also supports CMake via a plug-in. Whether it has disadvantages that will make it less useful for you depends on your organization and build process, but I've found it to be highly customizable to a wide variety of processes. I recommend taking a look at it.
There's also a third-party Ctest plugin available for Jenkins.
CDash works in pair with CTest. If you are already using CMake then it should be fairly easy to submit your testing results to CDash. I'd recommend reading the CTest documentation:
http://www.vtk.org/Wiki/CMake_Testing_With_CTest
You can either install your own CDash server or use Kitware's hosted server at my.cdash.org. You can test your server with a sample project available at:
http://www.cdash.org/cdash/resources/software.html
Related
We are big users of NuGet, we've got 25-30 packages which we make available on a network share.
We'd like to be able to test new packages before they're built and released in the consuming applications. Ideally, this could be done using something similar to Maven's snapshot and having a specific development package (e.g. snapshot functionality).
Has anyone else come up with a, ideally reasonably non-hacky, way of doing it?
Our favoured method is to generate the package assemblies and then manually overwrite the assemblies in the packages/ directory, i.e. to replace the actual project references, but that doesn't seem particularly clean.
Update:
We use a CI build server which creates builds on every commit and has a specific manually triggered NuGet build which works off specifically tagged versions of the codebase. We don't want to create a NuGet build off every commit, but we would like to be able to test a likely candidate in the wild before we trigger the manual NuGet package build.
I ended up writing a unit / integration testing framework to solve a simular problem. Basically, I needed to verity the content of the package, the versions and info, what would happen when I installed and uninstalled the package, what versions were the assemblies in the lib, what bits the assemblies were built as (x86 or x64) and so on - and I needed it all to run without Visual Studio installed and on my build machine (headless) as a quality gate.
Standing on the shoulders of giants like: Pester, PETools, and SharpDevelop's package management module I put together - nuget-test
Clone the project into your package directory (where your .nuspec file and package files are). If for whatever reason you want to keep the nuget-test project as a "git" repo then simple remove "remove-item nuget-test/.git -Recurse -Force" from the command below.
git clone https://github.com/nickfloyd/nuget-test.git; remove-item nuget-test/.git -Recurse -Force
Run Setup.ps1 in the root of the nuget-test directory in an x86 instance of PowerShell.
PS> .\setup.ps1
Write tests and place them in the nuget-test/test directory using the Pester syntax.
Run the tests.
PS> Invoke-Pester
Project page: nuget-test
On github: https://github.com/nickfloyd/nuget-test
I hope this helps you get closer to what you're trying to get done.
If you're using NuGet packages to distribute your libraries, you should not limit to only testing the libraries. You should test the packages themselves as well (if your binaries are OK but incorrectly installed, consumers still have issues). The whole point is to improve this experience.
One way could be to have an additional CI or QA repository. The one you currently have is actually your "production" repository containing consumable releases, considered finished high-quality products.
Going further, you could have a logical package promotion flow (based on Continuous Integration or even using a Continuous Delivery approach), where:
- each check-in produces a package on your CI repository
- testers pick up a CI package for QA and if found OK promote it to either a QA feed, or to the Production feed (whatever you prefer, depends on the quality of your testing and how well it is automated)
There are various ways of implementing this scenario, using simple network shares, internal NuGet.Server or Gallery implementations, or simply use http://myget.org to give it a try with minimal cost and zero effort.
Hope that helps!
Cheers,
Xavier
We have our source code stored in Kiln/Mercurial repositories; we use MSBuild to build our product and we have Unit Tests that utilize MSTest (Visual Studio Unit Tests).
What solutions exist to implement a continuous integration machine (i.e. Build machine).
The requirements for this are:
A build should be kicked of when necessary (i.e. code has changed in the Repositories we care about)
Before the actual build, the latest version of the source code must be acquired from the repository we are building from
The build must build the entire product
The build must build all Unit Tests
The build must execute all unit tests
A summary of success/failure must be sent out after the build has finished; this must include information about the build itself but also about which Unit Tests failed and which ones succeeded.
The summary must contain which changesets were in this build that were not yet in the previous successful (!) build
The system must be configurable so that it can build from multiple branches(/Repositories).
Ideally, this system would run on a single box (our product isn't that big) without any server components.
What solutions are currently available? What are their pros/cons? From the list above, what can be done and what cannot be done?
Thanks
TeamCity, from JetBrains, the makers of ReSharp, will do all of that. You will have to configure it for what specifically it means to "build your product", but you can configure up everything you specified with it.
The software can alert you to failed builds, even down to alerting only the person responsible for checking in code that broke the build. It even comes with handy web pages you can view to see only your own changes, which builds they've been through successfully, which ones are pending, and which ones are currently being executed.
Since it is a distributed product, you can make it grow with your organization and product. If at some point you discover that you're waiting for the build to complete too much, because a lot of builds are being queued up, you can add more build agents. The build agents are basically separate client programs you install on additional machines, that execute the actual build configurations.
It comes in two flavors, the professional version and the enterprise version. The professional version is free, can contain up to 20 build configurations, 20 users, and 3 build agents. The enterprise version has unlimited users and build configurations, and you can also use LDAP based security (think domain verified users.) There's also some other bonuses from the enterprise version. You can also buy licenses for more build agents if you need more than the initial 3.
Now, if "no server components" means you don't want it to act like a web server, you're going to be hard pressed to find something that will react to your commits.
However, if you mean that you don't want to have to install a server OS, then TeamCity can work on workstation versions of Windows as well. That isn't to say that you shouldn't consider setting up a proper server for it, but it will run on a workstation if that is what you require.
Our product BuildMaster does all of the things you listed by design and there is a free, somewhat limited edition (e.g. you can only have a limited number of issue tracking providers integrate with it, the database change script packaging tool isn't included in the free version, etc.) for 5 users or fewer.
What you've described is the basics of a CI Tool, so every CI Tool should be OK.
I use Cruise Control.NET but it is bugged with Mercurial and is not very straightforward at first glance. I am nevertheless happy with it. Other tools that come in my mind are Hudson, Team Build (from TFS) and TeamCity.
I have not tried other tools but you can see pros/cons here :
TeamCity vs CC.net
Hudson vs CC.net, Link 1 and Link 2
CC.net vs TFS
EDIT : I forgot to mention that Hudson and Cruise Control.net are Open Source project, you can easily write plugins and patches to your install.
EDIT² : Mercurial bugs seem to be fixed in the upcoming 1.6 version of ccnet (changes commited to the trunk this week).
There's always BuildBot which I like (and have contributed some code to ). It's fairly easy to set-up and run on any OS, and to do simple tasks like that you say, and remarkably flexible if you need it.
What you might find missing is batteries-included log-scrapers and/or report generators that other more commercial CI-servers comes with, especially for Enterprise-y frameworks.
It scales pretty well too, Mozilla and Chromium use it, amongst others.
I ask this question because I find the the community contributions to the various build engines (like MSBuild and NAnt) do include all the tasks that promote for CI servers, like getting versions from source control, cleaning folders, changing build numbers, sending emails, etc...
Is it only because it "listens" to the changes happens on the source control repository? what else am I missing?
Grzegorz Oledzki linked a good resource for finding the differences between multiple CI solutions, but it should be noted that the intent of MSBuild is to specifically turn code into binary and is used by CI software to build the source. It's true that it can do other things but most of its tasks lie closely within that realm.
In addition to what you mentioned about listening to the repo, some CI servers can do all kinds of things like^1:
multi-agent building (not just multi-core, msbuild can do that, but multi-machine)
monitoring build status
notifications (e-mail/sms/rss/whatnot)
assigning blame for broken builds
administrative features
supporting XFDs (extreme feedback devices)
automated deployment
And generally all from a handy UI.
1 Not all CI software will have all of these features, it is by no means meant to be exhaustive and there is some overlap.
I believe CI (Continuous Integration) feature matrix will answer all your questions about particular CI providers and their capabilities.
Wow there are just so many answers to this. As for what a CI system can do that a Build Script can't do other than listen to your Version Control System... Well for starters systems like TeamCity can let you first test your code on the build server and then check it in if it passes all the tests for starters.
I highly recommend using a CI server but I prefer to keep all of the build logic in a MSBuild file and all of the who to notify when it fails etc. in the CI server. Keeping the logic in the Build file helps you to reproduce the build on your own machine and makes it simple to set up new projects in the CI server or to change how the CI server builds the project
Are there any differences between the original CruiseControl and the .NET port? I've compared the 2, but can't find any big differences except the language it has been developed in. I want to use either one of them for (automated) testing of web applications, using Selenium and Subversion, perhaps even Groovy but don't know which to choose.
[edit]
After looking at CC and Hudson, I've chosen Hudson for it's simplicity, it already has plugins to run Groovy scripts and Selenium as well
Choose me, choose me! (I work on the original CruiseControl.)
I've never used CC.NET but from what I know I agree that they are pretty comparable. Probably the most important difference is cross-platform vs. Windows only.
Now I wonder how long until someone comes by and says their both crap and you should try Hudson? ;)
(And of course there are lots of other choices...)
CruiseControl.NET (cc.net henceforth) has build queues (http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/CCNET/Project+Configuration+Block), which allows you to serialize builds that depends on a certain build order. I'm in the process of emulating this behavior in the java version of cruisecontrol but the functionality doesn't map one to one. The reason however, that I'm at all moving from the .net to the java version is that the .net version core dumps with mono (cc.net nightly build and mono nightly build as of two months ago). The fault lies with monos thread handling but voids attempts to get cc.net up and running.
The documentation on this can be tricky to find, if you don't notice the version numbers that the configuration examples/documentation adhere to (confluence.public.thoughtworks.org has the updated configuration documentation whereas ccnet.sourceforge.net has not. I know that the ccnet is most likely a dead site, but if your're not carefully reading the datestamps on every page you're visiting, this may bite you).
Furthermore, the sourcecontrol blocks for cvs and svn in cc.net are more granular and featurerich than their counterpart in the java version, but this has not been a problem in my work. The java version is also easy to extend/modify re: plugin behavior, but you would really just like to see this kind of work going upstream instead of forking.
I'm fairly impressed with both the java version and the fork in .net (modulo mono runtime behavior), but you really do not want to try any of the other forks of cruisecontrol. I've had peripheral experience with hudson, and the features were just not compelling enough to veer me from cruisecontrol. Hudson has a (somewhat coloured) comparison map of Hudson and CruiseControl (java) at http://hudson.gotdns.com/wiki/display/HUDSON/Home
A viable alternative is the python implemented buildbot (http://buildbot.net/trac). It does not have fancy gui dashboards and the setup is somewhat more commandline-bound, but if you're doing distributed builds, it's very easy to set up and get running.
I think for you it will come down to operating system, original can run on nix, and .net version runs on windows.
There are other automated build utilities that can do this as well, such as TeamCity in the windows space, and cruisecontrol.rb in the ruby world.
Also there is a PowerShell based build utility called pSake that can poll subversion and perform tasks.
As good developers we keep our code as standard compliant as possible to help in porting between platforms. But what tools are available that help us build the code in a uniform way across multiple platforms.
*nix family has make but Windows needs nmake.
I have read about SCons but never used it in anger. What is your favorite build tool, why do you find it effective and are there any limitations (i.e. platforms with bad support etc).
Cross platform IDEs as well.
cmake for c/c++ environments is good. http://www.cmake.org/
I personally use ant, rake, and maven2. I have used ant the most and find it great for several reasons:
Because it is java it works on lots of platforms (without changing any scripts)
The build files are written in XML and fairly easy to write
There are lots of 3rd party extensions available for it and it is easy to write plugins for
we do extreme cross development, and our code runs on linux, windows ce, windows 2K, nucleus and uCOS-II.
since each environment uses different 'make' methodology (out nucleus customer, for example, require us to compile via code-warrior GUI).
i used ANT combined with perl for about 2 years, but this lead the build script to total non-maintainability.
now we moved to use python, which increase the maintainability of the scripts.
bottom line, i did not find a ready-made tool, and had to build my own. maybe, when i have some time (2017 ?) i will pack my scripts and distribute them ....
If you're in the Java world, there are quite a few tools which are cross-platform. Apache Ant and Maven are both build tools which will run on any platform which has Java available for it.
Cruise Control (continuous integration tool) also works on Windows and Linux (it's written in Java as well).
I haven't had any real issues with the core tools, the only problems I've sometimes had have come from things external to the build process, i.e. publishing artifacts - this will vary between systems so I've found there's no single way of setting it up.
For C/C++ development, I've found that bakefile works well. The fairly large wxWidgets project, a cross-platform cross-platform utility and UI library, uses it for their build file generation.
Bakefile is cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles generator. It takes compiler-independent description of build tasks as input and generates native makefile (autoconf's Makefile.in, Visual C++ project, bcc makefile etc.).
Bakefile's task is to generate native makefiles, so that people can keep using their favorite tools. There are other cross-platform make solutions, but they either aren't native and require the user to use unfamiliar tools (Boost.Build) or they are too limited (qmake).
You can use gmake on Windows as well with cygwin/minGW or build your windows stuff on Linux.
http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com/2009/05/mingw-cross-for-linux.html
There are tools like Opus Make or MKS Toolkit that offers multiplatform and support. If you have an existing codebase of make script, could be easier migrate to one of there. I suspect you may hunt for similar tools in advertising of DDJ magazine.
We've been running a Java environment for Linux, Windows and the Mac for the last 18 months.
Maven 2 drives our builds, it's pretty easy to get things consistent here. Where M2 plugins don't dare to tread, we use small Ant scripts.
IDE-wise we're using Eclipse & IDEA - both, of course, multi-platform.
Testing - JUnit, Fitnesse, Fest - all nicely multi-platform.
Release scripts are written in Ruby. There's a bit more trouble with Windows here, but a function to convert paths as necessary generally does the trick.
TeamCity does CI. We've actually migrated this from Windows to Linux and encountered no errors at all, very nice package.
We did use GWT for a while and this did cause us large amounts of pain. Be careful if you swing that way.