I'm currently setting up a new build server and I'm interested in any suggestions the community may have about software such as Hudson or CruiseControl.NET that may simplify and add additional value to the build process.
Previously I had a build server set up using custom batch files which would run msbuild and other such tools and these were triggered by subversion hooks to allow for a continuous builds to be done per branch. The idea was that eventually we would also execute automated tests and/or static analysis although we never really got that far. This server also acted as our source code repository, a test machine for web project builds, and a web server for custom dashboard and portal for developers on the team.
At this point my thoughts are to separate some of the responsibilities of the old build server and at least a Build Server which is responsible only for creating builds, a web server which is responsible for acting as the intranet style dashboard site for developers, and perhaps an additional web server as the Subversion repository. If it turns out to be better or easier to keep the Subversion code on the same server as SvnServe then I'll probably opt to place the Subversion repository on the web server but still keep the build server separate. Having no personal experience with any of the popular build server and CI solutions out there I'm curious how CruiseControl.NET, Hudson or other solutions would fit into this type of configuration. It appears that both of CC.NET and Hudson have web interfaces for example but the documentation doesn't clearly layout how this plays out with different hardware/system configurations so I'm not sure if either requires the web portion to be on the build server itself or not.
As far as technologies I'm dealing with .NET/C# based code which is a mix of Web/WinForms/WPF and we use a few separate Subversion repositories to host these projects. Additionally it would be nice to support Visual FoxPro and Visual Source Safe for some legacy applications. I would also like to get more team members involved in monitoring builds and would like to eventual have developers create build setups for their own projects as well with as much simplicity as possible. Also I should mention that I have no experience setting up a Java based web application in IIS but I do have quite a bit of experience setting up and managing ASP.NET applications so if that may make .NET based products more favorable unless I can be convinced otherwise.
UPDATE (after researching Hudson): After all the recommendations for Hudson I started looking into what is involved to get it up and running on my two Windows 2008 servers. From what I can gather the web portion (master) would run on my webserver but it seems that IIS isn't supported so this would greatly complicate things since I want to host it on the same machine as my other web applications. On the build server, I would be installing a second copy of Hudson that would act as a slave and only perform builds that are delegated to it by the master. To get this to work I would be installing Hudson as a Windows Service and would also need to install some unix compatibility utilities. Unfortunately the UnxUtils download link appears to be broken when I checked as well so I can't really move forward until I get that resolved. All of this is really sounding just as complex if not more complex than installing CruseControl.NET. For now this unfortunately leaves me to looking into CruiseControl.NET and TeamCity.
UPDATE (about TeamCity): After looking into TeamCity a little closer I realized that at least the server portion is also written in Java and is deployed in a manner very similar to Hudson. Fortunately it appears that Tomcat can be used to host servlets inside IIS although I can't find a good straight forward guide to describe how to actually do accomplish this. So skipping that for now I looked further when I ran into what looks like what might be a major snag.
TeamCity Professional edition only
supports TeamCity Default
Authentication and does not support
changing the authentication scheme.
Since windows authentication is likely the direction we will want to go, it's now looking like it might be back to evaluating CruiseControl.NET or possibly Hudson if I can get my hands on the UnxUtils and also find out more about how I can host the dashboard portion of Hudson within my existing IIS configuration. Any pointers?
UPDATE (about Jenkins): I ended up experimenting enough with Hudson that I ended up with a reasonable build server setup that I'm happy with and that can be extended to do much more if I need. Of course I went the rout of converting to Jenkins once Oracle took over Hudson and Jenkins is what I'm using today with little bits of powershell to help tie things together. I'm very happy with this approach right now and besides being Java based, Jenkins has quite a bit of support for other development environments such as .NET and MSBuild.
I'd vote for TeamCity here. Its is very, very easy to get stood up and running, integrates with all your .NET stuff without any trouble. The builds themselves are run by agents which can be on the build server or another machine depending on requirements--they could even be on a machine running an entirely different OS on a different network in a different country.
I highly recommend using Hudson. Not only will it allow you to build .NET applications on a continual basis, but you can also run code analysis and unit tests as well. It's easy to install (just deploy a WAR file to a web server such as Tomcat) and has many configuration options. There is also a large number of plugins available that you can use, many written by other Hudson users. Best of all, it is free and actively supported.
For our decision making process we started with following overview.
http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/CC/CI+Feature+Matrix
Our main objective was java, easy to configure/use even after nobody created a job for 6 months. We moved away from a old version of Cruise Control, since nobody really knew how to use it. Some of the commercial products are nice if you want to go beyond just continuous integration. Have a look and decide for yourself.
Be careful, I don't know how up to date this matrix is. So some of the projects might have implemented more functions right now.
An interesting alternative could be Jira studio by Atlasian. If you use the hosted version you don't have much on support issues and it comes with subversion, bamboo, and goodies (jira+greenhopper, confluence, crucible, fisheye). http://www.atlassian.com/hosted/studio/
I agree with Wyatt Barnett. TeamCity is the best choice. It is very easy to configure and use. Moreover, TeamCity has a Free Professional Edition. Previously we used CruiseControl.NET on our project. This is also a powerful tool, but it is very complicated and hard to understand.
What s.ermakovich said: Both TeamCity and Hudson separate the web UI from build agents. You shouldn't need to install IIS on a build agent. You'd need to install a JVM and the agent software on any build node - very straightforward.
Related
I am very very new to Docker. Our team has had a very nice deployment line up where We have different CI engines for different projects including Jenkis and TeamCity.
Developers usually check-in and CI takes over, deploys and its perfectly ready for test team to test. I always thought this to be a perfect model. Of course, some parts and our implementation have their flaws but it worked very well for what we wanted.
Now, our Dev-Ops is introducing Docker where test teams get a Docker Image from Docker Registry Everytime we run a build from teamcity. While it sounds really really fancy I am still failing to understand the benefit of it.
After my research, my conclusion was that Dockers can be a good light weight replacements for VM. BUT that is ONLY IF you are using any VMs? We are not using any VMS? I just do not understand what is the real value here? Also, while searching I found a relatively good link on Docker:
https://www.ctl.io/developers/blog/post/what-is-docker-and-when-to-use-it/
Where they discuss when you should use Docker and one of the point says that:
Use Docker whenever your app needs to go through multiple phases of development (dev/test/qa/prod, try Drone or Shippable, both do Docker CI/CD)
Ok. Howeve rthey do not further elaborate on why is docker useful when my app has to go through multiple phases?
And how it is exptremely helpful over regular Dev/Test set up when the existing set up is already working smooth?
First, you are right about comparing it to VMs in that it is similar to a VM. However, docker is incredibly lightweight. This property is the one that surprised me most in the beginning. As opposed to virtual machines, containers share resources much more efficiently. Virtual machines are isolated. Containers can run simultaneously on a host machine with very little overhead. You can configure containers to be able to talk to each other (via volume or port bindings).
Furthermore, in my team, docker brings the following benefits:
our application consists of one big application and several other few microservices. But we want to release all as one package with inter-dependencies among the applications, which eliminates problems with figuring out which version of application and microservices should be deployed together (compatiblity) etc. That is, the image contains all you need and you can bring all applications or one-by-one up/down using docker-compose. You do not need to deploy, you simply pull the image and fire a container/s. If you wish to stop one of the microservices, it can be done without affecting the others.
developers in the team, can run the very same image on local machine, for example to troubleshoot a problem occurred in the production; which means troubleshooting can be done in the same environment as in the production. This brings environment standardization and no more "but it works on machine" talk.
another benefit it brings to us is the following: we build a docker image, run our tests against it, and push it to the registry once all these phases succeed, which translates into a great portability.
Ability to version control the containers. You can easily inspect containers between the current version and the previous versions. If you wish to rollback - that is done smoothly.
Isolating and securing applications. All containers are isolated and you can easily control what goes in and out.
It took me a year before I got used to the idea, but now it seems simple enough.
I think part of that comes from the fact that people keep calling Docker a "virtual machine", which is not accurate. That's really just a nickname for what's happening behind the scenes. In a lot of ways, Docker will NOT replace a complete virtualization solution, such as VMWare. It does, however, bring forth a new way of thinking about infrastructure. One that many people have a difficult time wrapping their heads around.
You can start asking yourself: What makes a Linux distribution unique?
Aside from the kernel, everything else is just a "standard way" of organizing binaries, libraries, runtime and configuration files. You need your binaries in /bin, your libs in /lib, your configuration in /etc. User installations get placed under /usr...
Most distributions will keep the main structure from the Unix legacy and add its own quirks. Each one will have its own way to manage and distribute packages. Each will maintain their own versions of libraries, drivers, etc.
The key ingrident is the kernel. That's something they all have in common. Nowadays, recent builds of the Linux kernel are compatible with pretty much all major distributions available. So, aside from /boot, most of everything else is just a matter of having the right files in the right place with the right permissions.
Now, imagine you take all that distribution bundle (except the kernel) and place it all in another directory of your running OS. Taking advantage of the same kernel you are already running, you isolate a new process so that it "thinks" that / is now that directory. Bingo! This process now "thinks" it's running all by itself on another operating system.
Docker builds on top of Linux Containers, which allows us to do excatly that, but in a more friendly and easier way. Don't think of it as a virtual machine. Think of it as process isolation. The running kernel will share the machine's resources with this process, while keeping it isolated from the rest of the system. It's like jails on steroids.
That was a broad simplification. But, given the concept, think about the implications of this idea.
You can have on the same host, multiple processes with completely different environments that might otherwise conflict with each other. One may be a legacy binary that needs old libraries in place (legacy systems that never die). Another may be the most recent build of a bleeding edge technology. Sharing the same kernel is a efficient, and valuable resource management.
The most value I found comes from managing the infrastructure. Once you install Docker on the hosts, configure a swarm, and define a way of deploying containers, you mostly forget about the hosts. Adding users, installing packages, customizing, editing configuration files... All that becomes a development task on your desktop. There's an incentive to script more, to automate more. To keep your hands away from the physical or virtual machines, unless absolutely necessary.
Gone are the days when someone changed some obscure setting on the server to work around some weird application behavior, forgot to tell anyone about it and took a vacation. Changes to the environment can be commited to version control, tracked and improved by everyone on the team. If your datacenter goes through a disaster, recreating the whole environment is a matter of rebuilding images and redeploying containers. Your infrastructure becomes consistent and reproducible, while keeping the doors open to a wide variety of operating systems and customized configurations for each application.
Developers can take advantage of Docker with the ability of recreating dev/staging/production environments on their desktops. No need to polute a dev machine with application servers and database installations, or even the toll of Virtual Box to emulate all that.
Testing can be automated with a higher level of isolation. The Selenium team already has official Docker images. Creating an entire test hub should be a walk in the park with those puppies.
Building custom software, such as compiling Nginx with third party modules, can also be done inside containers from specialized images. No need to keep an entire server dedicated to it, or even polute your desktop with all the dependencies and build packages.
Overall, we've been having a great experience with Docker. We've migrated our staging environment to this new platform, and plan to migrate other parts of the infrastructure as well, eventually into production. So far, so good.
I hope you can convince enough people to take a better look at it. I'll admit, it took me sometime to get used to the idea. But once you get it, it's actually worth it.
We have developed multiple apps and adapters as part of our project
We have written little ant scripts to deploy the 'apps' and 'adapters',
Prior executing 'ant tasks' we want to know whether the apps and adapters were already deployed or not
Can I use the tables 'PROJECT_ADAPTERS' and 'PROJECT_APPLICATIONS' to avoid the duplicate deployment? (or) What will happen if try to deploy same 'apps' and 'adapters' twice by mistake ?
You should treat the worklight server as a black-box, although in purely technical terms you can investigate the database and deduce information in doing so you are not using a formal API and hence anything you do is unsupported and may become invalid in future product releases.
However there are published ant tasks for retrieving the list of deployed applications and adapters, so in principle you can use those. However I query the wisdom of doing so. My primary concern is that I don't see how knowing that some version of your artefact is deployed is significant. Suppose you have changed the source, don't you want to deploy anyway?
The ant tasks are documented in the InfoCentre. Search for the topic Administering MobileFirst Applications through ant. Here's a link that works today.
As Idan has indicated there is some degree of cleverness in the build tools to avoid redundant deployment. I suggest you just use the tools as they stand rather than try to circumvent them via back-door approaches.
Nothing bad will happen by re-deploying an adapter or application.
In fact, if the checksum is identical between the already-deployed .wlapp/.adapter and the to-be deployed .wlapp/.adapter, it may not get deployed at all. And if they do get deployed, twice, and it's exactly the same apps and adapters (no code changes), then they'll just be deployed again (they will not be duplicated).
I am developing a Remote Software Provisioning system that should be able to handle all deployment, installation, un-installation and upgrades of software components. Software can be in any language (java, .net, c/c++ etc) and target side can be PC, embedded systems and smart phones.
I have found Apache ACE as good candidate for developing this system.
I want to know if there is any advantage/necessity of using OSGi at target side as Apache ACE can do software provisioning to non-OSGi targets as well.
Having a modular framework like OSGi at the client side is a huge advantage when doing remote management, because it gives you much insight into what's happening inside - installed bundles, dependencies, states of the bundles, available services etc. This helps a lot when you have to solve a problem remotely. Another advantage is that OSGi basically forces programmers to develop proper modular and dynamic systems, which makes (remote) updating much easier.
So, if you have to decide now what language and framework to use for the client side, I strongly recommend OSGi for the embedded and mobile clients. For the PCs (I guess you mean desktop PCs?) this is probably not the best choice - it depends a lot what you want to achieve there. If you want to install MS Office remotely OSGi won't bring you forward ;)
However, if you already have existing programs at the client side and are discussing whether to convert them to OSGi, I would recommend to investigate some time first to see whether they can be converted easily. Some software packages could give you a lot of trouble converting to OSGi, not because OSGi is complex, but because the program itself is not modular and has a lot of assumptions about the static nature of the environment (e.g. nothing ever disappears, parts of the system never get updated etc.). The irony in the matter is that these are exactly the programs which will give you most trouble later anyway no matter which remote provisioning system you chose.
If you have OSGi at some of the targets be sure to use a remote provisioning system which gives you access to the full OSGi functionality and not only the most basic and simple install and update functions. I haven't yet used Apache ACE, but I have experience with another provisioning system - mPower Remote Manager. Here are some snapshots from the documentation which can give you a feeling what is possible with OSGi as a base - you can draw your own conclusions whether it will be useful for your case or not.
I've given some examples in the other question you asked:
What are the non-osgi targets with which Apache ACE can work
You can write your own management agent that talks to the ACE server and installs artifacts. There actually are a couple of places where you could hook in your own code and protocol. Is there a concrete language/environment you're thinking of using, or are you just exploring the possibilities right now?
Well, the advantages of OSGi haven't changed, so for that I can refer you to the standard page.
To be a bit more constructive, I'll read the question as 'Should I bother converting my application to OSGi, as it is not necessary for ACE?'
I think that depends on what 'kind' of updating mechanism you're after. If you have a monolithical application (at least from the provisioning perspective) which you deploy and update only as a whole (Like an iOS app) then there isn't much to gain for provisioning purposes by using OSGi.
For the rest I can tell you the same as I tell anybody else: Converting an application to OSGi isn't hard, but modularizing code can be a nightmare, but something you'll need to face at some point, OSGi or not. If your code is modularized already, using OSGi should be a piece of cake.
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.
I have a scenario where I have to setup a test environment where I want to be able to tell my NAnt or other build tool to make an new IIS web application, put the latest bins in the newly created IIS web application, and post me an email where the new address and port where the new application are addressed, is this possible and how? which tool?
There are several ways to approach this:
Set up a continuous integration (CI) server on the test environment. This is a viable option if your test environment machine doesn't change often and it's a single machine.
Push the installation from your development machine using tools like PsExec
Combination of the two: you have a build CI server which pushes the installation to (multiple) test environments.
Of course, you also need a good build script which will set up the IIS application (NAnt offers tasks for this). Emailing to you can be done by CI server (CruiseControl.NET Email Publisher, Hudson...).
I suggest taking some time to read this excellent article series: Automation for the people: Deployment-automation patterns
Our CruiseControl .Net build server does exactly this as part of it's NAnt build-script process...
Once the code is retrieved from source control, it's all built/compiled in turn. Web projects are then handled slightly differently to normal .dlls, as they are deployed to a particular folder (either on the current machine or otherwise) where IIS (also set-up by the script) to serve the pages.
Admittedly, we're using Virtual Directories instead of creating and disposing of new website instances on the server, as otherwise we'd have to manage the port numbers for each website.
NAnt has the capabilities of doing all of this IIS work, as well as all of the email work too - I'd certainly recommend looking at this avenue of enquiry to solve your problem. Plus, you also get the continous integration aspect as a side-benefit in your case!