In our project we have multiple components developed by separate teams having separate git repos.
All components have commit job and packaging job and publishes the artifacts to artifactory.
The problem comes when we want to deploy all the components as a system.
Since all these components deploys to separate servers and then interact with each other for functioning.. a lot of time inconsistencies arises due to some newer version of a component being deployed to one of the server.
For ex. I have components A,B,C and want to move following versions A1, B1, C1 in the deployment and testing pipeline. How I can ensure that no newer version of a component is deployed to QA environment (servers). I am using Jenkins as my CI/CD tool. It seems I need some integration or lightweight configuration management tool to manage the versioning of my system as a whole comprising of all components which I can promote in the deployment pipeline.
I hope I could describe my question. Suggestions to tackle this situation will be really helpful.
Thanks,
We use this pattern:
for every customer which uses our products there is one "project": It contains nearly no code, just configuration. We use this name scheme: coreapp_customerslug.
the project depends on N applications. The project pins all exact versions of the dependencies.
During CI we do this:
install project P and all the pinned dependencies
Then update all dependencies to their latest version.
Run all tests
If all tests succeed, update the versions of the dependencies and increment the version of the project.
Now the project has a new and stable release.
deploy the new release (at the moment we don't do this automatically, but in the near future).
With this pattern ("project" is an container of the apps) you can handle the version problem. If you have several servers, the update process should be fast, to avoid different versions at the same time.
Update
The CI maintains the pinned versions. We use python and pip and the file requirements.txt gets updated by a script. We use the version schema YYYY.N. N gets incremented if all tests are ok.
Attention: If app1 has latest version N, this does not mean that it works in all projects. If you have two projects: P1 and P2, this can happen: app1 with latest version N works well in project P1, but fails in P2. This means you can't create a new stable version of project P2. Sometimes this is annoying, but this keeps a constant update alive. We always use the latest version of our apps in ours projects.
Related
I started to interest in monorepo approach and Nx.js in particularly. Almost all articles talks that monorepo solve the problem of incompatibility of library versions and I don't quite understand the how. There I have few questions:
If i understood right, the idea of monorepo (in terms of shared code) that all shared code always the same version and all changes are happen in one atomic commit (as advertisement of monorepo states). So lets imagine monorepo with 100 of projects and all of them are depend on libA in the same repo. If I change smth in libA than I have to check changes in all dependent project. Moreover, I have to wait all codeowners to review my changes. So what is pros?
Lets imagine I have monorepo with following projects: appA, libC, libD and there are some third party library, let's call it third-party-lib. appA depends on libC and libD. At some time appA need third-party-lib-v3, BUT libC depends on third-party-lib-v1. https://monorepo.tools/#code-generation states that: "One version of everything
No need to worry about incompatibilities because of projects depending on conflicting versions of third party libraries.". But it is not. In world of Javascript it results in 2 different versions of third-party-lib in different node_modules. Angain what is pros?
I could be very naive in my questions because I never encountered problems with libraries, also I just started learning monorepo topic so I would be glad if someone help me to deal with it.
Having worked with shared code in a non-monorepo environment, I can say that managing internal packages without a monorepo like NX requires discipline and can be more time consuming.
In your example of 100 projects using 1 library, all 100 projects should be tested and deployed with the new version of the code. The difference is when.
In separate repos, you would publish the new version of your package, with all the code reviews and unit testing that go along with it. Next you would update the package version in all your 100 apps, probably one by one. You would test them, get code reviews, and then deploy them.
Now, what if you found an issue with your new changes in one of the apps? Would you roll back to the previous version? If it was in the app then you could fix it in that one app, but if it was in the library, would you roll back the version number in all your apps? What if another change was needed in your library?
You could find yourself in a situation where your apps are using different versions of your library, and you can't push out new versions because you can't get some of your apps working with the previous version. Multiply that across many shared libraries and you have an administrative nightmare.
In a mono-repo, the pain is the same, but it requires less administrative work. With NX, you know what apps your change is affecting and can test all those apps before you deploy your changes, and deploy them all at once. You don't block other changes going into your library because the changes aren't committed until they are tested everywhere they are used.
It is the same with third party libraries. When you update the version of a library, you test it in all applications that use it before your change is committed. If it doesn't work in one application, you have a choice.
Fix the issue preventing that application from working OR
Don't update the package to the new version
It means that you don't have applications that are 'left behind' and are forced to keep everything up to date. It does mean that sometimes updates can take so much time that they are difficult to prioritise, but that is the same for multi-repo development.
Finally, I would to add that when starting to work with NX you may find yourself creating large, frequently changing libraries that are used by all apps, or perhaps putting large amounts of code in the apps themselves. This leads to pain where changes frequently result in deployments of the whole monorepo. I have found that it is better to create app specific folders that contain libraries that are only used by that app, and only create shared libraries when it makes business sense to do so. Examples are:
Services that call APIs and return business domain objects that should not really be changed (changes to these APIs and responses generally result in a V2 of the API and a new NX library could be created to serve that V2 API, leaving the V1 unchanged).
Core, stable atomic UI libraries for each component (again, try not to change the component itself, but create a V2 if it needs to change)
More information on this can be found here NX applications and libraries
My team has a monorepo written with React, built with Webpack, and managed with Lerna.
Currently, our monorepo contains a package for each screen in the app, plus a "container" package that is basically a router that lazily serves each screen. The container package has all the screens' packages as dependencies.
The problem we keep running into is that, by Lerna's convention, that container package always contains the latest version of each screen. However, we aren't always ready to take the latest version of each screen to production.
I think we need more granular control over the versions of each screen/dependency.
What would be a better way to handle this? Module Federation? peerDependencies? Are there other alternatives?
I don't know if this is right for your use case as you may need to stick with a monorepo for some reason, but we have a similar situation where our frontend needs to pull in different screens from different custom packages. The way we handle this is by structuring each screen or set of screens as its own npm package in its own directory (this can be as simple as just creating a corresponding package.json), publishing it to its own private Git repository, and then installing it in the container package via npm as you would any other module (you will need to create a Git token or set up SSH access if you use a private repo).
The added benefit of this is that you can use Git release tags to mark commits with versions (we wrote our own utility that manages this process for us automatically using Git hooks to make this easier), and then you can use the same semver ranges that you would with a regular npm package to control which version you install.
For example, one of your dependencies in your container package.json could look something like this: "my-package": "git+ssh://git#github.<company>.com:<org or user>/<repo>#semver:^1.0.0 and on the GitHub side, you would mark your commit with the tag v1.0.0. Now just import your components and render as needed
However, we aren't always ready to take the latest version of each screen to production.
If this is a situation that occurs very often, then maybe a monorepo is not the best way to structure the project code? A monorepo is ideal to accommodate the opposite case, where you want to be sure that everything integrates together before merging.
This is often the fastest way to develop, as you don't end up pushing an indeterminate amount of integration work into the future. If you (or someone else) have to come back to it later you'll lose time context switching. Getting it out of the way is more efficient and a monorepo makes that as easy as it can be.
If you need to support older versions of code for some time because it's depended on by code you can't change (yet), you can sometimes just store multiple versions on your main branch. React is a great example, take a look at all the .new.js and .old.js files:
https://github.com/facebook/react/tree/e099e1dc0eeaef7ef1cb2b6430533b2e962f80a9/packages/react-reconciler/src Current last commit on main
Sure, it creates some "duplication", but if you need to have both versions working and maintained for the foreseeable future, it's much easier if they're both there all the time. Everybody gets to pull it, nobody can miss it because they didn't check out some tag/branch.
You shouldn't overdo this either, of course. Ideally it's a temporary measure you can remove once no code depends on the old version anymore.
I'm having the same issue as nuget feeds and promotions, eight years later!
In this case I'm talking more generically; we're using ProGet as our package manager, and have nugets, universal packages, and even some docker containers to consider in the package promotion process.
One of the ideas is to have several Nuget feeds; a ci feed where every successful integration publishes a package, a qa feed that you only publish versions you want qa to test and then a release feed, where you copy only packages from the qa feed that they successfully tested.
So, say we have a build in the ci feed that works, it's version 1.2.3-ci-xyz. We want to promote that to the QA feed, without a rebuild, and re-package it as 1.2.3-rc-1. That package passes QA and is ready to be promoted into the prod feed, with no rebuild, and ship to production. It should ship as 1.2.3. (right?)
The question is, if we're not doing any rebuilds, the package binaries will still have the version 1.2.3-ci-xyz. That'll show up anywhere a version is displayed or queried in the app.
And that's where I get stuck. What's the proper pattern here? Does it matter what version is shipped, as long as we know what it is?
meaning, we promote 1.2.3-ci-xyz from lower feeds to higher feeds, without repackaging with different versions?
Wouldn't it be incorrect for package 1.2.3 to include a binary 1.2.3-ci-xyz?
do we always build with the next 3-digit number, and forget about the ci/rc suffix?
I'll share this answer from our internal support channel :)
This is how we (Inedo) typically handle this in our libraries. The short answer is:
We set the Assembly Version to Major.Minor.Patch
We set the Assembly File Version to Major.Minor.Patch.Build
We set the Package version to Major.Minor.Patch-ci.Build (we then repackage to Major.Minor.Patch-rc.Build then to Major.Minor.Patch)
We also use the Assemble Informational Version to display a friendly version (ex: Version 6.0.0 (Build 36-v6))
This allows us to repackage without rebuilding. We also will detect these pre-release dependencies during our product builds and prevent them from being released to production. You can see our ProGet v6 build as an example: ProGet 6.0.0 Build 36.
The longer answer I feel is answered pretty well in our blog post Best Practices for Versioning NuGet Packages in the Enterprise.
My use case is composed of several ReactJs projects, where we collaborate using Git.
we are building a workflow to be used using Git, and that's our current thinking:
Each programmer works locally feching the next branch
They build their own branches but at the end its all merged to next
When all the pending tasks are done, we move create a branch test from next
Once test is fine, it is branched to beta
When stable, branched stable
This is the development phase.
For deployment, our first tought is to "build" the bundle on test, beta and stabe and copy it to the respective servers for running, as we keep built bundles on a normal filesystem (this is how we do it today, keep several bundles for several versions, not using Git)
Our production environment has dozen of servers in different customers, and every time we need to update, we need to copy the respective bundle from the correct directory to the server and install it (all bundles are build with an installation tool).
So, I have 2 doubts here:
a) Is the development workflow a good practice? Any suggestion?
b) How we make the deployment workflow smoother? Should we keep the bundles together in the code on Git ? Should we use something different?
Ideally we would need the server to autoupdate from our command. What would be the correct way to accomplish that ?
I am working with Octopus deployment tool. We have a situation where we should not promote the binaries from DEV to QA. This is due to the reason where some features are still in development. We have another branch MAIN from where all the feature will be released. From here we will be generating build and deploying to QA and PROD.
In order to keep the build environment intact, we need to build and deploy only to DEV and should not be promoted.
I thought of creating a separate project specifically for DEV environment.
Before proceeding with this approach, I wanted to know if there any other better solution.
Raaj
You could create a separate lifecycle that has only the DEV environment in it to prevent it from being promoted. Octopus has a feature called channels which allows you to create releases that are only able to be deployed to the defined environments within that unique lifecycle.
https://octopus.com/docs/deployment-process/channels