Is there a way to alter a build using the CLI after having published it?
UseCase: A deployer (be it automated or manual) wants to add additional files (e.g. Testresult-logs) to an already published build (because they need very long to be created but the artifacts of the fresh build should be published asap).
When I redo a jfrog rt bp over and over again I get "new" builds with the same description (same buildnumer etc.) instead of overwriting/extending existing build.
Appreciating any hint :-)
The main idea of the buildinfo in Artifactory is that they are immutable, which means they cannot be modified post publish. This is to make sure the integrity of them.
In your case, a possible way to achieve this may be:
When publishing the artifacts themselves, you might want to not publish the buildinfo.
You can collect buildinfo through your build cycle, and publish everything as a single buildinfo object after all the tests.
Related
I'm using Artifactory Pro with custom repository layouts. I promote my build and move all artifacts to my production repo. But I need to add an article number in this path, so the guys can reference it to their ERP System.
I tried some stuff here, with promoting and moving artifacts to match their needs. It works, but its not nice.
So I added my custom layouts:
For my developement repo:
[org]/[module] ...etc...
For my production repo:
[Articlenr<.*>]/[org]/[module] ...etc...
When I promote my build, my files are stored like this
[Articlenr]/customer/linux ...etc...
The article number is just filled up with [Articlenr], but I'm not able to replace it by the real one, without moving the complete directory.
Anyone here knowing, how to set the article number while promoting this build?
My builds are promoted by JFrog CLI, but using the Artifactory REST API is an option, too.
Thanks a lot!
Currently, there's no way to use the promote command to promote a build with a target path as an argument.
If you are not set on using promotion, consider using the CLI's COPY or MOVE commands, where you can use placeholders in the target path to increment your Articlenr.
The downside of using cp/mv instead of bpr would be the fact that your build will not be flagged as promoted in artifactory (build-info), which may be a problem in some cases (like if you are using build retention for example).
It is not an ideal solution, but it might suffice for what you are trying to accomplish.
HTH, Or
Are there more examples of custom build JSON payloads beyond that available at https://www.jfrog.com/confluence/display/RTF/Artifactory+REST+API? Or perhaps more in-depth documentation on the “application/vnd.org.jfrog.build.BuildsByName+json” payload?
We have a build that produces both JAR/IVY and RPM files (and some other file types that Artifactory doesn’t really know the content of). Today, we publish those into a generic repository to keep everything together.
What would be ideal is to be able to create my own custom build using the REST API, composed of the JAR files + RPM files, so I can do licensing searches across them.
In the given example, the artifacts composed in the build are referenced by ID/name/hash for reference.
The problem with the current Jenkins/Artifactory/Gradle plugin that we use is that our build is separated amongst many smaller builds, but ultimately, are released as one. This makes making a full report somewhat difficult, and doesn’t have any way for us to easily do license checks including RPM files. We want to be able to publish one build, which contains everything we know in the build.
The current setup also has us uploading our JARs into a Maven repository, which adds time to the builds, given we are also publishing the same content into the Generic repository alongside the RPMS and other content.
Thanks!
The build info JSON is fully documented in the README of this
repository: https://github.com/JFrogDev/build-info
Which is also the repository the holds the code of the build info
engine used by the various JFrog CI/Build plugins. You can definitely
create your own BI JSON, and, if you're going to use Java to do that,
you should check out this project that demonstrates the usage of the
various build info Java APIs:
https://github.com/JFrogDev/project-examples/tree/master/build-info-java-example
Another option you may want to look into is the JFrog CLI, which
recently brought support for associating artifact
deployment/resolution with a build object and deploying it to
Artifactory. This method is completely agnostic to the file types
your build produces or the build tool you are using. Have a look at
the official documentation here:
https://www.jfrog.com/confluence/display/CLI/CLI+for+JFrog+Artifactory#CLIforJFrogArtifactory-BuildIntegration
Lastly, if you are using Jenkins, the Jenkins Artifactory Plugin now
has Pipeline APIs that will allow you to collect artifacts and build
information programmatically, and even concatenate multiple build info
objects to deploy them as a single build entity to Artifactory,
which is pretty wicked.
Have a read about this here:
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Artifactory+-+Working+With+the+Pipeline+Jenkins+Plugin
If you have a project that builds one project before building the next, but the next needs to know the 'path' of the first build, is it possible to get this?
For example:
Project A has Build Configuration A and Build Configuration B.
Build Configuration B has a dependency on Build Configuration A. From without the Build Configuration B it will need access to the path of Build Configuration A. Is there are a way to obtain this?
Most simple approach would be to define a custom checkout directory in the A and use the same hard-coded value in B.
If you use TeamCity snapshot or artifact dependencies, you can use %dep.btXXX.teamcity.build.checkoutDir% to get checkout directory of the dependency build. However, this will not work in 6.5.0-6.5.5 TeamCity versions, see details and workaround in the issue TW-18715.
However, you should really avoid accessing checkout directory of one build from another. If you need sources of A, you can checkout them in B; if you output of the A's build, then publishing the output as build's artifacts and then using TeamCity artifact dependencies is the way to go. In both cases additionally using TeamCity snapshot dependencies will ensure both builds use the same sources snapshot which is probably what you need.
If you have one agent, and only ever one agent then you could try and use the path from a previous build.
I wouldn't recommend doing this however because if you had two agents, or scaled up in the future to two agents, then it is possible your projects will be built on different agents; this would mean your dependency working directory won't be on the same machine, or it will be outdated as the latest was built elsewhere.
I assume you're after the path of the first build to get its output?
If so, the method we use to share dependencies between projects is to checkin the output from each project into our source control, then every project that requires the output simply has to check them out.
I'm using Perforce, if that changes the tune of the answers at all.
I'd like to implement a build process that, when a solution is built in a "release" mode, tags the entire source tree with a label and pushes the output of the build (DLLs, webpages) to a /build/release directory in source control. This directory should always contain the latest complete build, nothing less and nothing more, so I can yank that directory to production servers in its entirety and it's ready to go.
Now say I had a DLL in a previous release that the new build is not supposed to include. Does this mean the best practice for updating that /build/release folder is to check the entire thing out, delete everything in it, add the new build files, and sync it? Sounds like an obvious answer, but I want to make sure I'm not missing some other voodoo that might be a better way to do it.
I think you are missing the simple voodoo:) You should consider just using a plain old file system for your build drops. Source control is designed to manage change, versioning, and collaboration and there really is no need for any of this related to builds. The whole point to an build system is to be able to reproduce the source code and create the application at a moments notice so I would focus on being able to do that more than relying on the permanent storage of the output files. Be sure to back up the build drop folder structure just as you would the source control database. Use a folder naming scheme that includes the build number in the filename. I would store all of the builds (back at least several) because there are times when QA wants to restore an old build to test in order to compare features or resurrect a bug. Using this system every build gets a new folder so you don';t have to worry about deleting out old files.
I'd say "Yes" - you should to start with a blank folder structure for your builds (regardless of source control system).
Our organization's custom build tools write out a lot of intermediate data, and I'd like it if Hudson could detect which files were created as part of a build and archive those. I'm not sure if it already does so, but if it does there's no user-visible explanation of it, and certainly deleting a build does not delete its output.
In detail here's what I want. Suppose I start with a bare workspace. After build 1, I have this:
ws/
src/...
obj/
1/...
log/
1/...
pkg/
pkg-1.tgz
Now, I run build 2:
ws/
src/...
obj/
1/...
2/...
log/
1/..
2/..
pkg/
pkg-1.tgz
pkg-2.tgz
The source code is checked out into ws/src each build; there's a custom checkout process, so I can't use the svn RCS method :/.
When I delete a build, I'd like to delete everything that came from that build. Can I do this?
The Hudson way would be to clean up all temporary files at the beginning of the build, and then use Hudson's artifacts archive facility to save the output from each build - specify pkg/**/*.tgz for the "Archive the Artifacts" post build step and then the tgz files will all be copied into the job specific storage area.
The workspace is just a workspace - it's not intended for long term storage.
What I would do, if I were in your shoes, would be to solve the problem a different way. I would write a task or script that specifically deletes everything you don't want to keep, and run that task or script at the end of each job.
Hudson assumes you're cleaning up temp files on your own. If that's not happening, I don't believe Hudson has any facility to help you.
It's difficult to answer without understanding your "custom checkout process", but typically all of the project's build artifacts are created beneath a single directory apart from the src, e.g. "build" or "target".
That way, the project's "clean" target can simply remove that directory, and you can instruct Hudson to include this target for each build.
It appears your build artifacts are contained in multiple directories relative to 'src': 'obj', 'log', and 'pkg'. Can you introduce a "clean" target that will explicitly delete each of those directories?