This question already has an answer here:
Karate summary reports not showing all tested features after upgrade to 1.0.0
(1 answer)
Closed 1 year ago.
I've recently discovered the karate framework. Great work! I've extended the standalone jar with custom java helpers to be able to access DB and ssh servers.
I transfer logs and results files from the ssh server to the server in which I run karate.
I'd like to store these files aside the HTML report. But, as long as the test runs, the report folder has a temporary name. It is renamed at then end of the run.
Is there a way to get this temporary name (or path) to be able to copy files into it?
Best regards,
Patrice from France
This is a bit of a surprise for me, because as far as I know the folder is target/karate-reports. Maybe this is some weird thing that happens only on Windows. I'd request you to see if you can debug and contribute code to the project, that would be really great !
Since you are writing Java code and adding it to the classpath I guess, then you should probably use the Runner API that gives you more control, and also the option to disable Karate trying to "backup" the existing old reports folder. This is explained here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/66685944/143475
There is also an option to customize the name of the reports folder: reportDir().
For this kind of control, we recommend using Karate in Java / Maven project fashion, but you can decide what works best for you.
Related
I'm trying to set up a deployment chain for some of our ASP.NET applications. The tool of choice is Web Deploy (msdeploy) - for now. Unfortunately I'm stuck on a problem.
A high level overview of the chain is thus:
Web developer creates the code and checks it in SVN;
Buildserver sees the update and builds the msdeploy .zip package of the website;
The .zip package is automatically put inside our installer and sent to various clients;
The clients run the installer on their webserver(-s);
The installer uses msdeploy internally to deploy the .zip package and create a new website or upgrade an existing one.
Msdeploy makes it easy to deploy a new instance, but I'm stumped about how to perform an "upgrade" install. The main problem is the web.config file. Each client will most certainly have made some customizations there to suit their specific environment. The installer itself offers to set some more critical parameters at the first-time installation (achieved by msdeploy's parameter mechanism), but they can do others by hand.
On the other hand, we developers also occasionally make changes to web.config, adding some new settings or removing obsolete ones. So I can't just tell msdeploy to ignore the file entirely. I need some kind of advanced XML modification mechanism. It could be a script that the developers maintain, but then it needs to be run ONLY at upgrades, not new installs.
I've no idea how to accomplish this.
Besides that, sometimes there's also some completely weird upgrade logic. For example, the application comes with our company logo, but some clients have replaced that .png file to show their own logo. Recently we needed to update the logo - but only for clients that hadn't replaced it with their own.
Similarly, there might be some cache folders that might need to be cleaned at SOME upgrades but not at others. Or folders with user content that may not be touched (but come with default content at the initial installation). Etc.
How do you normally achieve this dual behavior for msdeploy packages? Do I really need to create 2 distinct packages for every application?
Suggestion from personal experience:
Isolate customisations
Your customers should have the ability to customise their set up and the best way is to provide them with something like an override file. That way you install the new package and follow by superimposing your customer's customisations on top of your standard setup. If its a brand new install then there will be nothing to superimpose.
> top-level --
> standard files |
images | This will never be touched or changed by customer
settings.txt |
__
> customer files --
images | Customer hacks this to their heart's content
settings.txt_override |
--
Yes, this does mean that some kind of merging process needs to happen and there needs to be some script that does that but this approach has several advantages.
For settings that suddenly become redundant just issue a warning to that effect
If a customer has their own logo provide the ability to specify this in the override file
The message is clear to customers. Stay off standard files.
If customers request more customisable settings then write the default if it does not exist into the override file during upgrades.
Vilx, in answer to your question, the logic for knowing whether it is an upgrade or not must be contained in the script itself.
To run an upgrade script before installation
msdeploy -verb:sync -source:contentPath="C:\Test1" -dest:contentPath="C:\Test2" -preSync:runcommand="c:\UpgradeScript.bat"
Or to run an upgrade script after installation
msdeploy -verb:sync -source:contentPath="C:\Test1" -dest:contentPath="C:\Test2" -postSync:runcommand="c:\UpgradeScript.bat"
More info here
As to how you know its an upgrade your script could check for a text file called "version.txt" and if it exists the upgrade bat script will run. Version to be contained within the text file. Bit basic but it should work.
This also has the added advantage of giving you the ability of more elegantly merging customer's custom settings between versions as you know which properties could be overriden for that particular version.
There are some general suggestions (not specific to msdeploy), but I hope that helps:
I think you'll need to provide several installers anyway: for the initial setup and for each version-to-version upgrade.
I would suggest to let your clients to merge the config files themselves. You could just provide them either detailed desciption of waht was added/changed/removed, and/or include the utility that simplifies the merge. Maybe this and this links will give you some pointers.
as for merging the replaced logos, other client's customization, I think the best approach would be to support branding your application. I mean - move all branding details to the place where your new/upgrade installers won't touch that.
as for the rest of the adjustments made by your clients, they do that on their own risk, so the only help you could provide them is to include the detailed list of changes (maybe even the list of changed files since the previous version) and the How-To article about merging the sources with tools like Araxis Merge or similar
Or.. you could create a utility and include it to the installer, which will try to do all the tricky merging stuff on client's machine. I would not recommend this way as it requires a lot of efforts/resources to maintain.
One more thing: you could focus on backup-ing the previous client copy before upgrade. So even client will have troubles with upgrading - that will be always possible to roll back. The only thing here for you is to provide a good feedback channel which your clients can use to shoot their troubles. This feedback will allow you to figure out what the troubles your clients have and how to make their upgrade process more comfortable.
I would build on what the above have said, but I would do it with transformations, and strict documentation about who configures what. The way you have it now relies on customer intervention against a config that is mission critical to the app deploy process.
Create three config file areas. One for development, one for the "production generic" build, and one that is an empty template for the customer to edit.
The development instance should be self explanatory. This is the transform that takes the production generic template and creates a web config for your development server. (it sounds like you are shooting for a CI type process here)
The "production generic" transform should set the app up for a hypothetically perfect instance of the app. This is what the install would look like if the architect had his way.
The customer transform is used by the customers to set up the web config as required to meet their own needs. Write some documentation and see what happens. Edit the docs as you help customers through the process.
It that what you were looking for? Thoughts?
I am interested in testing flyway and if I am not wrong I read that it supports db changes both through java and SQL. I am a dba and familiar with SQL but not java.
I read through the “Getting Started” page and wanted to try out the sample application available under the “Downloads tab” link however I couldn’t find any readme document explaining the available downloads which appeared to contain .jar files.
Q) is there an instruction manual for a newbies to explain how to put together this sample application?
Q) can one uses flyway without knowing java? If yes, please provide any how-to url/notes/documents available. If not do you have any how-to for one to get started with java just enough to operate this tool?
Thanks Bob
I think you might find the command line tool useful:
http://flywaydb.org/documentation/commandline/
As it says on the website:
The Flyway command-line tool is meant for users who
do not run their applications on the JVM
wish to migration their database from the command-line without having to install Maven
You may need to browse the source code to figure out some more details:
https://github.com/flyway/flyway
Although I think you should be able to adapt the regular documentation to the CLI option.
Try starting here:
http://flywaydb.org/getstarted/existingDatabaseSetup.html
I’m looking for a good deployment strategy for deploying a ASP.NET MVC3 application. What I imagine is that each deployment would be some kind of commit to a Source Management System in the sense that a deployment tool could automatically do the following:
1) Upon generating a deployment package (a commit) the tool would
remember the state of my Web.Config file, the state of a folder of
auto-generated scripts containing new database changed, the state of
a folder of batch files that contain new tasks to be run on the
server, the state of files specifying ISS settings changes, etc.
2) When I build a package the next time, the tool would know to only
package the new script files, web.config changes, new batch files,
new ISS settings since my last package
3) Apply the package unto my web application
I started looking into MS Deploy but it only seems to do number 3. I’ve been searching around for either an application that that does what I imagine or a strategy to combine some SMS and MS Deploy. I'm hoping that someone has already solved the problem I feel I have here. My last resort of course is to build the tool but again, that would be my last resort.
Are you using Team Foundation Server? If so, TFS comes with tools to automate builds (including labeling code, running unit tests, deploying, et cetera.) Take a look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181710(v=vs.80).aspx
TFS is not exactly easy to configure and get going but it's free if you are already using TFS.
If you are not using TFS, look for continuous integration tools like NAnt or TeamCity.
Have you used Web Deploy and the "Publish" feature under Build in Visual Studio?
You can set options for things like leaving the previous files on the server.
Your web.config file, do you mean the main one or one that already exists elsewhere on the server? Your web.config file should copy from your project to the server, or are there settings that are different when running locally vs server? If so, look at using transforms to modify web.config.
This is only a partial answer to #1 for you, but we looked for a long time on a migration tool that we liked... We ultimately found Migrator.Net: http://code.google.com/p/migratordotnet/
Doing this, you can turn db migrations into a batch command
Maybe i'm totally outdated but for last four years i've been using simple FTP upload feature while uploading new website even without building it within Visual Studio. Just bunch of ASPX and CS files as in Visual Studio.
I do understand that compiling the project will provide me with some security defence so ones who have access to the server won't be able to read those files in text editors and i will avoid first time compilation but is that so important?
I mean, you can always do a lot of harm if you have access to server that just reading CS files instead of DLL.
First time compilation usually takes no more than 1 minute just searching for compiled version of the site will take as much time.
Now i'm watching video on PluralSight which explains new MSDeploy tool available from ASP.NET and i can't see any good reason to use it.
So what's wrong with the old fashioned way of just sending files via FTP without compiling or using fancy tools?
I did speed test and with MSDeploy i can deploy a website twice faster than old-fashioned FTPing. So instead of 4 minutes it will take 2.
Now from another perspective, when i already have alive project on the web. In which have to change Default.aspx because i have typo in some html tag. Deployment via MSDeploy will take 10 times more than uploading one file
Maybe i miss something?
MSDeploy does things which FTPing to a site can't do. Need to change a machine.config? You're unlikely to have FTP write access to the folder which contains it. Want to change a server setting in a server-version-independent manner? FTP won't do that. Etc. FTP works fine for copying files to folders in which you have write access, but that's all it can do.
When you deploy a project you can do a lot of things with it.
You can set up a job in your deploy that packages all your javascript into one file and all your css into one file.
You can set up a job in your deployment that changes a bunch of config settings to match your production server settings (rather then development settings).
The idea of deployment is that you take your current development website and transform it into a production website without having to do any of that manually.
The most important thing is that when you can only deploy your website you will never forget to package your js or forget to remove some debugging code because you can't just sneakly update a single file.
I'm trying desperately to move from VSS to a real source control system. Options include TFS and SVN.
My designers need to keep their ability to modify source files and instantly preview their changes in a browser without having to commit their changes. Using FPSE with VSS, this works flawlessly, since saving a file causes the copy in the working folder on the dev server to be updated, so they can just save and refresh their browser which is pointed at the dev server.
The site in question consists of 350k+ lines of classic ASP code and some new ASP.NET MVC. They only need to be able to modify views within the MVC code, not C#.
Though Expression includes a version of Cassini for local debugging, Cassini does not support classic ASP.
Surely someone has solved this problem before. It can't be necessary to install IIS on each designer's machine (this is absolutely untenable). I need a way to have a common working folder on a dev webserver updated whenever someone saves a file locally, just like using FPSE.
I'd rather not write an FPSE proxy that knows how to talk to TFS/SVN. Any suggestions?
(I know I've asked this question in the past, but I haven't yet found a solution.)
Why the need to copy the source files when they are saved, why not simply save the files to a network share and work on them directly? If the dev server is constantly being overwritten after every save anyway surely the effect is the same?
This probably won't be as instantaneous as you like, but with TFS you could set up a Continuous Integration (CI) build that builds and deploys the project to a test server on check-in. If you do this, you'll want them checking in to a QA type branch, then, once they are happy with how they look, they can then merge to the mainline branch for the real build and integration.