I would like to have TeamCity Artifacts be checked back into source control.
I have used TFS Integrator before. So I am used to its approach where, through config, it can check in the output builds back into source control. Then when people do a get they will receive these artifacts.
Or is there a completely different way of achieving this with TeamCity?
The two ways I can think of are
VCS Labeling
specify a path in your working directory to label and the location relative to the trunk to check it in. jetbrains explains it here
/project/trunk/dist=>/project/tags/%system.build.number%
from the build script
manually checkin the artifacts from the build script and add an ignore to the place where your checking in to so it doesn't trigger the build again.
e.g. use -:user=devA:project/sources/** to prevent build triggering after a change of VCS user devA made in subfolder project/sources/**
Related
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).
Is it possible to exclude a folder in a web project from being published? We've got some documentation and scripts that included in a particular project folder, and are added to the project, but when I do a VS publish, I don't want them to go up to the production server.
I know they shouldn't be in the project, but I thought I'd find a workaround before I try to convince the owner to modify the way he's doing things.
Old question, but I found if I mark the folder as hidden in Windows Explorer, it doesn't show/publish in your solution.
This is good for example to stop original photoshop images being included in uploads which aren't used and are big. Anything more complex though you'll probably want to write your own publish tool.
This doesn't answer your question, exactly, but my feeling is that unless you are a single developer publishing to a server, you would be better off doing builds on a dedicated workstation or server using MSBuild (or some other building and deploying solution) directly (and thereby would be able to very granularly control what goes up to production). MSBuild can not only build, but using some extensions (including open source types), it can also deploy. Microsoft has a product called MSDeploy in beta, and that might be an even better choice, but having no experience with it, I cannot say for certain.
In our situation, we have a virtual workstation as a build box, and all we have to do is double click on the batch file that starts up an MSBuild project. It labels all code using VSS, gets latest version, builds the solution, and then deploys it to both servers. We deploy exactly what we want to deploy and nothing more. We're quite happy with it.
The only downside, if it could be considered a downside, is that at least one of us had to learn how to use MSBuild. VS itself uses MSBuild.
For the files you don't want to go, loop at the properties and set the 'Copy to Output Directory' to 'Do not copy'
This option is not available for directories, however.
Can you not exclude them from the project through visual studio to stop them being published. They will the still exist in the filesystem
The only way that you can do this to my knowledge would be to exclude it from the project, do the publish, then re-include it in the project. That can be an issue.
There are probably much better ways to solve this problem but when we publish a build for our dev servers, we'll run a batch file when the build is complete to remove the un-needed folders and web.configs (so we don't override the ones that are already deployed).
According to http://www.mahingupta.com/mahingupta/blog/post/2009/12/04/AspNet-website-Exclude-folder-from-compilation.aspx you can just give the folder the "hidden" attribute in windows explorer and it won't publish. I tested this and it works for me.
Seems like a straightforward solution for quick and dirty purposes, but I don't think it will carry through our version control (mercurial).
Select all the files that should not be published.
Go to Properties
Set
Build Action -> None
Have to repeat the process for each sub-directory.
I am working with couple of friends on an ASP.NET MVC website. The project is maintained in SVN and I have CC.Net set up to checkout latest version and do automated build and deploy to a pre-production server. The default build configuration is set to Debug, but the automated build is set to build Retail. Everything works just fine, except for the <compilation debug=""> in web.config which currently is set always to true. I'd like to be able to specify true or false for <compilation debug=""> based on the build flavor.
I've thought about two separate solutions to this problem.
I could have a pre/post-build step that modifies the value. However, the web.config file is under source control, so modifying it in the automated build will leave it checked out on the build machine. I could also have additional step that would revert it as well.
I could also instead of having web.config under source control, have a web.config.base file that is used as a source during the build to generate the web.config file. The problem with this approach is that most of the tools modify web.config directly and we have to manually merge such changes back in the base file. And since there's no indication when any tool changed web.config, we have to look for changes at any checkin. Not only this becomes a tedious manual step, but it's also error prone.
Both of these approaches would work, but have some shortcomings. I was hoping there's a more elegant way of doing this. Thus the question - how do you guys deal with modifying web.config that is under source control during the CI builds?
You can take a look at the Web Deployment Projects VS add-in. Scott Guthrie does a great job explaining it in this post.
Why not modify web.config as part of a build-step using a command line utility that can edit XML?
e.g. Obtain a command line utility that works like:
xml_mod.exe web.config [xpath-of-value-to-change] [new-value]
Then have different value per debug/release(retail)..
Why don't you just make the web.config read/write without checking it out from source control, make your changes you need during the build process and then discard them?
AFAIK SVN has the files read/write anyway.
we have a
web.config for development
web.config.cert which is deployed by hudson to our cert environment
web.config.prod which is used for production
This allows us to put comments in there and values in there specific to the environments when that would normally have to go in some documentation somewhere, and it would surely be ignored.
Like I said, we have Hudson deploy to our cert environment on each build, so it just copies the directory over, deletes the web.config and renames web.config.cert to web.config
You may want to check out Hudson, I dont think I've ever heard of anyone choosing CC.net over Hudson if they had the ability to choose :)
In my automated NAnt build we have a step that generates a lot of code off of the database (using SubSonic) and the code is separated into folders that match the schema name in the database. For example:
/generated-code
/dbo
SomeTable.cs
OtherTable.cs
/abc
Customer.cs
Order.cs
The schema names are there to isolate the generated classes that an app will need. For example, there is an ABC app, that will pull in the generated code from this central folder. I'm doing that on a pre-build event, like this:
del /F /Q $(ProjectDir)Entities\generated*.cs
copy $(ProjectDir)....\generated-code\abc*.cs $(ProjectDir)Entities\generated*.cs
So on every build, the Nant script runs the generator which puts all the code into a central holding place, then it kicks off the solution build... which includes pre-build events for each of the projects that need their generated classes.
So here's the friction I'm seeing:
1) Each new app needs to setup this pre-build event. It kind of sucks to have to do this.
2) In our build server we don't generate code, so I actually have an IF $(ConfigurationName) == "Debug" before each of those commands, so it doens't happen for release builds
3) Sometimes the commands fail, which fails our local build. It will fail if:
- there is no generated code yet (just setting up a new project, no database yet)
- there is no existing code in the directory (first build)
usually these are minor fixes and we've just hacked our way to getting a new project or a new machine up and running with the build, but it's preventing me from my 1-click-build Nirvana.
So I'd like to hear suggestions on how to improve this where it's a bit more durable. Maybe move the copying of the code into the application folders into the NAnt script? This seems kind of backwards to me, but I'm willing to listen to arguments for it.
OK, fire away :)
How often does your DB schema change? Wouldn't it be possible to generate the database-related files on demand (e.g. when the schema changes) and then check them into your code repository?
If your database schema doesn't change, you can also package the compiled *.cs classes and distribute the archive to other projects.
We have two projects in our solution that are built completely out of generated code. Basically, we run the code generator .exe as a post-build step for another project and along with generating the code, it automates the active instance of visual studio to make sure that the generated project is in the solution, that it has all of the generated code files, and that they are checked out/added to TFS as necessary.
It very rarely flakes out during the VS automation stage, and we have to run it "by hand" but that's usually only if you have several instances of VS open with >1 instance of the solution open and it can't figure out which one it's supposed to automate.
Our solution and process are such that the generation should always be done and correct before our auto-build gets to it, so this approach might not work for you.
Yeah I'd like to take VS out of the equation so that a build from VS is just simply compiling the code and references.
I can manage the NAnt script... I'm just wondering if people have advice around having 1 NAnt script, or possibly one for each project which can push the code into the projects rather than being pulled.
This does mean that you have to opt-in to generate code.