Is there any way to avoid triggering build on certain file commits which are not directly related to source code?
e.g. I don't want to trigger a automatic build when anyone make changes to README.md file or some reference document file.
I don't know that it's described in the plugin page or the Wiki, but at least according to the Advanced Features/Additional Behaviors, the git plugin can be configured to do what you're looking for in multiple ways.
eg: Polling ignores commits in certain paths lets you specify an Included region or Excluded region" The help (?) says:
Each exclusion uses java regular expression pattern matching, and must
be separated by a new line.
myapp/src/main/web/.*\.html
myapp/src/main/web/.*\.jpeg
myapp/src/main/web/.*\.gif
The example above illustrates that if only html/jpeg/gif files have been committed to the SCM a build will not occur.
You'd have to try them out. One less plugin - KISS!
After searching for quite a while I finally found a Jenkins plugin which can skip the build when there is keyword "[ci skip]" in the commit message.
This allows to skip a build on any file commit which has this keyword [ci skip].
only disadvantage is, it will skip the build even if somebody puts [ci skip] in a code file commit
Github: jenkins-ci-skip-plugin
Related
We use Teamcity 2018 together with TFS.
We have one project in which the structure is following
Root <---- We want to checkout the whole Root-directory
\ProjectA <---- We want to show changes only from the sub-directory
\ProjectB
\ProjectB
We would like to watch changes from Root\ProjectA-directory and display only changes that were done under that directory.
However, we would like to checkout the whole Root-directory and run our build from there.
Is there any way to do this?
Trigger rules can help you accomplish this. Within your VCS trigger, you can specify a collection of rules to filter in or out various conditions that will cause your build configuration to trigger. These are independent of your VCS rules and those rules will handle what you choose to checkout as normal. The rule syntax is as follows:
+|-[:[user=VCS_username;][root=VCS_root_id;][comment=VCS_comment_regexp]]:Ant_like_wildcard
The Ant_like_wildcard is the element of particular interest to you in this case, as you can use them (among other things) to filter in or out a particular directory.
Here is an example from the TeamCity Documentation:
"-:lib/**" prevents the build from triggering by updates to the "lib" directory of the build sources
Using your example, your trigger rule would look something like:
+:ProjectA/**
You can use a single inclusion rather than multiple exclusions because of the way TeamCity handles those types of rules:
When specifying the rules, please note that as soon as you enter any "+" rule, TeamCity will change the implicit default from "include all" to "exclude all".
You can find the full TeamCity VCS Trigger documentation here
I am not using ANT at all so the proposed duplicate does answer this question about Jenkins.
I am working on a build script that will increment the version number of the program. To do this the version file will be checked out, next version number computed and written back, and then checked in.
It occurs to me that this will trigger yet another build in an endless cycle. When we used TFS builds we could put a string in the check in comment like ***NOCI*** or something and that check in would be ignored and not trigger a new build.
Is there any such option for Jenkins or a technique I can apply myself to solve this?
I am using the TFS plugin to access my SCM.
The Subversion SCM plugin allows you to specify paths that will be excluded when polling for new versions. Git SCM also can be configured to exclude some regions.
By excludng the file that contains the version number you will be able to avoid the vicious circle that you observed.
Since you cannot cloak or .tfignore your versioning file...you can use the NOCIOption property, and pass in the flag for it, in your comments.
You would setup the NOCIOption property of the SyncWorkspace workflow activity in TFS, and during your version change, pass "****NO_CI***" flag in the comments of the checkin. This is kind of hackish and could be avoided if you used GlobalAssemblyInfo.cs versioning, linked throughout your project instead.
I suggest not using your "versioning" file, as it's fundamentally wrong for the reason of cyclic checkins. I would suggest using the GlobalAssemblyInfo.cs linked throughout your .NET solution and stamping that prior to calling MSBuild. It works like a champ for setting and linking versioning throughout your .NET projects in your solution. You implement Global Assembly Info in your solution as described in this answer here.
You can understand more of it here, at "What are the best practices for using assembly attributes". You could simply stamp this file (via Powershell or whatever) and call MSBuild and your version will be present in all .DLLs.
I have a Jenkins job that stores artifacts as a post-build action. Within these artifacts is a text file that tells which version of the software has been built. Is it somehow possible in a Jenkins project to get access to this text file and displaying its contents somewhere on the Jenkins build page somehow? This way the build manager would instantly see what software version this archived artifact contains. Thanks!
There are more advanced ways with GroovyScript, but I can suggest something like this:
Use Description Setter plugin. It uses RegEx to look at the console output (build log) for a pattern and sets the description (as seen in screenshot) accordingly.
If you don't have the version already printed in console log, you can print it out with either
cat filename (Linux) or type filename (Windows). No need to store a version text file as an artifact (unless you need it for other purposes)
To answer your question directly, in order to add text to actual build page, you can use Groovy Postbuild plugin, something like this:
def workspace = manager.build.getEnvVars()["WORKSPACE"]
String fileContents = new File('${workspace}/filename.txt').text
manager.createSummary("folder.gif").appendText("${fileContents }")
The plugin page has a lot of examples.
I got a revised proposal. Since all you really want is to include a semantic versioning information in your displayed build name and/or description, there is a simpler way to do this.
First of all I have stumbled upon a plugin that does the extraction of your version from the Maven or SBT build process quite nicely - the Semantic Versioning Plugin. This does what is advertised - extracting the version from POM or whatever and including this as a file and a variable in your build process. So you have the freedom to use both, either include the file in your build process and do what you heart wishes AND/OR use the variable to affect the build flow in Jenkins. Now, because this plugin still have couple of bugs I would like to point you for now to my own build of this plugin with fixes already in that can be obtained from here. I will take my own version down the moment that all fixes will be merged to the official plugin...
Then let's start with the name. As suggested previously the best way to do so is to use the Build Name Setter plugin. In order to use both plugins to set up a name for your build navigate to the configuration of the project and find an option named "Determine Semantic Version for project" in there, activate it and either use the default name of the variable or provide your own. When you're down scroll down a little bit to the option named "Set Build Name" and activate it. By default you will see the regular build naming convention there - #${BUILD_NUMBER}. You can use that variable as well as any other provided by any plugin, but in this specific case you need to use the environment variable that you have named above, i.e.:
#${BUILD_NUMBER} - ${ENV,var="SEMANTIC_VERSION"}
This will set the name of every build to something more meaningful, so in this case it may result in #76 - 0.0.76-SNAPSHOT. Obviously you're free to experiment on your own to tailor the name of the build to specific format you desire. Keep in mind that it might break your page flow a little bit since the name will be longer than usually, therefore it will push that table with latest builds on the left side of the screen as well it will affect your dashboard.
Now, in order to customize your build information further you might want to take a look at Description Setter Plugin as well. Personally, since I have started to investigate this case further, I use the combination of both at this time. You can use the same token expansion as the one listed above, the big difference is that you will need to create/maintain a file that will be used to create the description. What you will include in this description is only limited by all the variables or token published by Jenkins itself or any of the installed plugins (take a look here). Personally I am listing some information gathered from different places as well as some additional stuff created/provided by Maven during the build process. So it's pretty handy.
Both plugins mentioned above (Build Name Setter and Description Setter) can use other sources of information to build the name and description - it can be properties files, etc. For example one can use Job Exporter Plugin to drop a properties files to read all possible information about the build itself in the form of, as example:
${PROPFILE,file="hudsonBuild.properties",property="build.user.name"}
In this case this will resolve to user name of the user who have triggered the build.
Again, any variable visible to Token Macro plugin can be used.
I would like to use http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-checkstyle-plugin/ as part of a project build with an intent to fail the build on a violation. However, since some of the projects already exist and it contains a lot of existing code, i would prefer to customize the checks in a way that it is only applies to modified files (svn/git) and not the whole project. Is there a way to achieve this?
You could set up a pre-commit hook on your repository to run checkstyle on file add/update,that way there is no need to fail the build, you can just block the commit. Refer to this use case: http://saturnnetwork.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/ultimate-architecture-enforcement-prevent-code-violations-at-code-commit-time/
Having real problems creating artifacts in teamcity 6.5 (using TFS & MSBuild as the buildrunner if it makes any odds, which it probably does as any examples I find seem to use SVN...).
The Build works, so long as I enter no checkout rules.
If I understand it, I'll need to set up some artifacts, that themselves rely on checkout rules(?).
I have two builds that are identical other than the way they are kicked off.
One is initiated on check-in
One is initiated manually from within TC. This build is the Test Build
Assembly version numbers come from a single versioninfo.cs file that is a linked file in all projects in the solution. This method is detailed here : http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/328977/The-Right-Way-to-Version-Your-Assemblies and holds the version number thus:
[assembly: AssemblyFileVersion("9.1.0.0")]
Ultimately, I'm unable to copy the output of the test build to another location.
As it stands, the only output of a build is in the teamcity data directory, for example :
C:\TeamCity\buildAgent\work\ceaaf65dc87ff856\Project1\bin\Debug
C:\TeamCity\buildAgent\work\ceaaf65dc87ff856\Project2\bin\Debug
etc
I'd like to copy the output files (exes and DLLs) to an output folder which has the build number of the build on it
For arguments sake, lets say for the version number above, this would be to
c:\BuildServer_Output\SolutionName\9.1.0.0
Currently I have not been able to create artifact paths that actually do anything - i.e. to copy anything anywhere.
For instance I have acoupe of artifact paths, but nothing ever gets put into C:\BuildServer_TestBuilds -
+:Accounts\bin\debug* => C:\BuildServer_TestBuilds
+:BackOffice\bin\debug* => C:\BuildServer_TestBuilds
Am I getting no artifacts (and my artifact paths therefore ignored) because I have no checkout rules?
Any help would be appreciated.
I am pretty sure artifacts and checkout rules are completely independent. Artifacts just deal with what has been built. Checkout rules tell teamcity how to react to and checkout changes in the VCS.
It looks like your artifact paths are beginning with absolute paths. I have always found it easier to use relative paths with wildcards. That way I don't need to worry about where teamcity put the build. We use the following to get all dlls and exes to one folder
**\bin\Debug\*.*=>deploymentdir
Our build configuration page has an artifacts link and when we open it it will have things like
deploymentdir\common\bin\debug\common.dll
deploymentdir\common\bin\debug\common.pdb
deploymentdir\runner\bin\debug\runner.exe
In one of our other builds we use an msbuild script to flatten our output before putting it through the artifact process.
We do use checkout rules but we have not had to change our artifact paths to accommodate them.