Is there a way in TFS 2012 to set Project (not .csproj projects but TFS projects) build priority?
Currently we have many projects in TFS, one of which is a core project that many other projects reference. If someone checks in changes to both core and another project at once, the core project build doesn't always kick off first (I think they build in alphabetical order). It would be nice to be able to set the core project as the highest priority so that its build always runs first when changes to multiple projects are checked in. Is this possible?
There is no way to set the default build priority for a Build Definition. Since a Build Definition isn't bound to a Team project, but to a collection, there is also no way to configure the Queue to pick up builds from one Team Project before any others.
What you can do is to set a tag on an agent and then assign that tag to the build you want to take precedence. This will exclusively reserve the Build Agent to that specific build definition, causing it to jump in the queue.
Is there a way in TFS 2012 to set Project (not .csproj projects but TFS projects) build priority?
A project in TFS is quite a loose term which does not correspond to a VS project, it's actually used to refer to a product which can contain many branches. The high level project management tools then operate on the TFS "project".
If someone checks in changes to both core and another project at once, the core project build doesn't always kick off first (I think they build in alphabetical order).
Nope, assuming you don't have a custom build then they (the VS projects) don't build in alphabetic order at all, they build in order of dependency. Solutions are built in the order they are returned from the evaluation of the $(SolutionsToBuild) property (this does a wildcard search of the filesystem for .sln files, so maybe that's where your alphabetic observation comes from). Note that dependencies are evaluated on projects within a solution, there is no evaluation of dependencies across solutions.
For the following statements I'm going to assume that you have standard CI style builds gated upon checkin.
If a developer checks in everything at once then the checkin will happen as an atomic unit of work and the build will commence once the checkin is successfully committed. If this is not your experience then I would suggest that you either have funky stuff happening in a custom build, or the developer is checking blocks of work in separately rather than all at once.
Note that this happens per checkin per workspace - if two different developers check stuff in at the same time then whoever checks-in first will trigger the build, and the submission of the second developer will miss the build.
Related
Our builds generally have a mish mash of work items and commits associated with them and I cannot tell how TFS determines what to add. We are using TFS 2015 update 3 and TFVC.
When a build runs, it gets code from a location somewhere in the branching and folder of TFVC. Typically, something like "root\dev\src\component name" in this way we avoid getting all of the code in our repository and we have CI set up to run so that any changes in this folder will result in a CI build running.
We also run daily builds which run more tests and create a release package that is used by TFS Release Management. I would expect that any changes to code inside of the folder defined in setting up the repository for this build to be included in the associated change-sets of a build. I also expect that any changes checked-in outside of these branches would not be associated. But this is not the case. We see commits from across the entire project.
Does anyone know how this is supposed to work?
I am not sure if this should go in the question or the answer but I have found some additional information, thanks to the hints provided in the answers below.
It appears that the source settings will take the common root between mapped folders of the repository settings, so if I have 2 folders $/Relo/Dev/B1/src/Claims.Services and $/Relo/Dev/B1/src/PSScripts it will take the common root $/Relo/Dev/B1/src as the source settings and include any changes from that folder down within the build. Can anyone confirm this? Of course thats not what I want to have happen. In the History tab of the build definition if I looked at the diff I can see a field "defaultBranch" in the json which seems to be the value that controls this, is there any way to update this field directly?
TFS determines what changesets should be mapped to a build based on the Source Repository Mappings (Build vNext) in the build definition and the last successful build.
So, you will see a list of the changesets with files committed in the lowest common base of any of the mapped folders including all their descendents, since the latest successful build. Whenever you get a successful build (I hope that it happens more often than failing ones ;-)) the list will shorten and only show the last check-in.
Example mappings below will result in any changeset made to anything below $/Relo/Dev/B1/src (because it is the lowest common base):
$/Relo/Dev/B1/src/Claims.Services
$/Relo/Dev/B1/src/PSScripts
Similar it will pick up all the related work items to the above changesets.
This is what should happen. If you see something else, I would have a closer look at the Repository Mappings or Source Settings of the build definition.
#Noel - I guess you are using vNext build and not XAML builds. Or are you using a mix of XAML and vNext?
In general a scheduled TFS build will associate all changes which were not associated in the last successful run of the same build.
I suggest you check once again if the source folder locations are the same for CI build and Daily build?
We are using TFS and the TFS Build Service. We are considering to migrate the Build service to Jenkins but we came across some issues. According to this site, there are some things that do not work very well with the TFS and Jenkins plugins. All of them we use a lot:
Associated Change sets – Team Build automatically associates a list of change sets that are included in the build
Associated Work Items – Team Build analysis the relationships and also associates Work Items with a build. Indeed it walks the work item tree (parent) and maintains that association in the chain.
Is this still true? We have this scenario:
A developer checks in a code that fix a bug or resolve a User Story. It does that by associating his check in with the work item ID.
His check in triggers a build that will associate the work item with his changeset. For bugs, the build will update the "Integrated in Build" field with the build number. We use this field to know in witch version the bug was fixed.
Is there any way to make Jenkins behave and do what TFS build service does?
Another option is to mix the two using dummy builds on the TFS side that set the records straight and kick-off the Jenkins' builds. Some hints
How to trigger Jenkins builds remotely and to pass parameters and “Fake” a TFS Build.
This approach requires a bit of effort but has many advantages:
No big-bang, use Jenkins opportunistically
Can continue using existing builds
Having a build identifier in TFS allows you an overall monitoring and to use the Test features
I have a VSTS build definition for one of our projects that requires jenkins to build, but we still have all our other products using VSTS natively. To maintain consistency, this build definition triggers a jenkins build. We configured the build definition to not sync code as jenkins will download it (save time) and not to publish the artifacts back to the agent (i have another script for that found here). This allows developers to continue to use git as normal, and the build/release process is consistent with our other products. Along with task tracking and such.
I have a TFS 2010 with some projects and a common library used in 5 of them. We use VS 2013 and we have Rolling Builds enabled in most if not all build definitions. When the common library is checked in, all of the projects referencing it are recompiled - but the order is poor, the most commonly used project is compiled as the last one. Is there a way to change that so it gets compiled first?
This question hints at a lot of problems and possible solutions. The simplest answer is probably to just add more build servers to run all the builds in parallel.
Otherwise you need to consider turning off rolling builds and writing your own build scheduler. That or other strategies such as building the DLL once and checking it in as source to the other builds or running the build on a branch that is outside of the other 5 builds and merging the source into those builds when they want to pick up the change.
If you are otherwise happy with how things are now and don't want to do a lot of work to solve the problem.... then just scale out your build farm with additional agents.
There's a "Priority in queue" on the build definition, but it sounds like you might want to change your solution's > Project Dependencies' > Build Order?
Ok so I have to admit, I'm very new to all of this build automation stuff. But basically what I'm wondering is if there is a way to wire up my build definitions in such a way that if I have a case like so
ProjectA produces ComponentA.dll
ProjectB references ComponentA.dll and produces ComponentB.dll
ProjectC references ComponentB.dll
then when I make changes to ProjectA and check them in, the build process would automatically also build ProjectB, and finally ProjectC, and report any errors.
So is there a way to accomplish this, or should this type of thing be handled somehow completely differently in the first place?
The process you are referring to is the crux of the practice known as Continuous Integration.
TFS does it very well: simply set your build definition Trigger to Continuous Integration and set the Workspace working folder to the parent folder of the three projects. This way, any change in one of the projects will trigger a build.
MSDN: Build and Deploy Continuously
You can use a visual studio solution and use project references between the projects. Then build the solution on your build server.
I'm currently working on creating a build template for TFS2010 builds. However, I notice that I'm currently 'spamming' the source control with every change I make to the template (and lots more for all the fixes for those changes).
I wonder what the easiest way is to test the build templates I'm creating?
Is there a way to change the template file and custom activity dlls that doesn't involve checking them in?
I currently have a build controller and agent running on my developer machine, which I'm using to test the template (test = start a build and hope for less errors than last time).
Why is 'spamming' a problem? Anyway, I have a separate Team Project for doing this kind of work, that way I can check in to my hearts content without affecting the developers who need to have a stable build. once I've done my testing I check the template in to the team project(s) used by the developers.
I want to test my builds against the teams latest code-base without having to branch it over to a trial project.
Instead, I do the following:
Create a separate build definition called 'Infrastructure'
clone a production definition
Set the trigger on the Infrastructure build definition to manual.
Set the Infrastructure definitions permissions to allow only [Project]\Build group members to have full control of it.
keeps the notification of broken builds away from the bulk of the team).
Create a separate build process template, called 'Infrastructure.xaml'.
Point the Infrastructure build definition at the Infrastructure process template.
Now when I want to iterate on a new build feature for the team:
Check out the build process template I want to update, and lock it.
Copy the build process template I want to update overtop of the Infrastructure.xaml.
Add my build feature to the Infrastructure.xaml file, and check that in.
Use the Infrastructure build definition to test my changes.
Iterate over 3-4 until I get it right.
Complete the feature and have my changes verified by another Infrastructure team member.
Copy Infrastructure.xaml over the build process template I locked in (1) and check it in.
This still results in 'spam' in the TFS source control, but it keeps the build definition iteration out of the eyes of the team. My build process templates are located out of the main source tree (under the Build Process Templates folder, or in the branches themselves under a 'Core/Build' folder where no-one else on the team is typically paying any attention) so that the team is largely unaffected by it.
#d3r3kk: Why not just branch the template and merge changes back when ready instead of creating copies? That way you can preserve source history in a cleaner way as well.
Ideally, there should be a way to have a build process template that is in progress by having it on your local file system and pointing the build definition to it temporarily. Not sure if something like this exists in later versions of VS/TFS. I haven't seen it available via the UI anyway.