The most aggressive build retention policy one can set for pull request builds is described in "Clean up pull request builds"
a policy that keeps a minimum of 0 builds
Still, it means that successful PR builds (with artifacts no one will ever need) will be deleted only after the next automatic retention cleanup - usually the next day, but in reality it results in nearly two days worth of no longer needed builds.
In our particular case it seems to be desirable to find a way to clean successful PR builds ASAP due to their frequency and artifact's sheer size that may periodically strain our not yet fully organized infrastructure dedicated to PR handling (it will be significantly improved, but not as soon as we'd like to, and those successful PR builds would still remain no less of a dead weight).
And as far as I see the only way to do it would be to delete builds manually.
While it is not too difficult to implement, I'd still like to check whether there is a simpler standard way to delete successful PR builds automatically.
P.S.: There is one particularity in our heavily customized build process - we have multiple dependent artifacts. Like create A, use it to build B, create C to test B... So trying not to Publish artifacts on overall successful build with custom condition like it is suggested below is not exactly feasible.
Let's look at the problem from a different perspective: The problem isn't that builds are retained, the problem is that your PR builds are publishing artifacts.
You can make the Publish Artifacts steps conditional so that they don't run during PRs. Something like and(succeeded(), ne(variables['Build.Reason'], 'PullRequest')) will make the task only run if it's not a PR.
I'm having some trouble preventing a Scheduled Build from being automatically kicked off after the same build has been trigger manually and no changes are present.
Problem: The Build is scheduled to go out at 3am everyday but only if any changes have been made (the Settings option ‘Build even if nothing has changed since the previous build’ is Unchecked). The problem is that if you trigger a manual build and no changes are made afterwards, the Scheduled Build is still going to get triggered even if there are no changes. Please follow the scenario bellow for an example:
Scenario:
Scheduled build gets kicked off today at 3am - assembly version changes to 1.0.0.1
On the same day, several changes are checked-in before noon.
The same Build is kicked off manually at 1pm - assembly version changes to 1.0.0.2
No more check-ins are made after the manual build from 1pm
The next day at 3am the Scheduled build gets triggered which it shouldn't have (assembly version changes to 1.0.0.3) since there were no check-ins since 1pm (triggered manually).
It seems like the 1pm build is not even being considered and accounted for.
It looks like TFS is taking in count check-ins since the last “Scheduled Build” rather than “the last completed Build” (same build definition) which in this case was the manually triggered one.
So my question is: “Is there any way we can prevent TFS from triggering Scheduled build if there were no check-ins after a manual build has been kicked off?”
Currently, it looks like TFS does not have that option anywhere in the Build Definition
Thank you in advance
In order to do this you would need to write your own scheduler that checked the previous manual build for you. You could write a TfsJob for this or even as a a scheduled powershell that runs at the allotted time...
I ran into this issue today as well.
It seems this is currently "by design".
Someone else posted a suggestion to "fix" this here:
http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/5702884--build-even-if-nothing-has-changed-since-the-previ
We just started using Visual Studio Release Management for one of our projects, and we're already having some problems with how we are doing things.
For now, we've created a single release stage, which is responsible for deploying our build artifacts to a dedicated virtual machine for testing. We intend to use this machine to run our integration tests later on.
Right now, we have a gated checkin build process: each checkin fires all the unit tests and we configured the release trigger to happen on this build also. At first, it seemed plausible that, after each checkin, the project was deployed and the integration tests were executed. We noticed that all released builds were polluting the console on Release Management, and that all builds were being marked as "Retain Indefinitely" and our drop folder location was growing fast (after seeing that, it makes sense that the tool automatically does this, since one could promote any build to another stage and the artifacts need to be persisted).
The question then is: what are we doing wrong? I've been thinking about this and it really does not make any sense to "release" every checkin. We should probably be starting this release process when a sprint ends, a point that can be considered a "release candidate".
If we do that though, how and when would we run our automated integration tests? I mean, a deployment process is required for running those in our case, and if we try to use other means to achieve that (like the LabTemplate build process) we will end up duplicating deployment code.
What is the best approach here?
It's tough to say without being inside your organization and looking at how you do things, but I'll take a stab.
First, I generally avoid gated checkin builds unless there's a frequent problem with broken builds. If broken builds aren't a pain point, don't use gated checkin. Why? Simple: If your build/test process takes 10 minutes to run, that's 10 minutes that I have to wait to know whether I can keep working, or if I'm going to get my changes kicked back out at me. It discourages small, frequent checkins and encourages giant, contextless checkins.
It's also 10 minutes that Developer B has to wait to grab Developer A's latest changes. If Developer B needs that checkin to keep working, that's wasted time. Trust your CI process to catch a broken build and your developers to take responsibility and fix them on the rare occasions when they occur.
It's more appropriate (depending on your branching strategy) to do a gated checkin against your trunk, and then CI builds against your dev/feature branches. Of course, that opens up the whole "how do I build once/deploy many when I have multiple branches?" can of worms. :)
If your integration tests are slow and require a deployment to succeed, they're probably not good candidates to run as part of CI. Have a CI/gated checkin build that just:
Builds
Runs fast unit tests
Runs high-priority, non-deployment-based integration tests
Then, have a second build (either scheduled, or rolling) that actually deploys and runs the whole test suite. You can schedule it according to your tastes -- I usually go with one at noon (or whatever passes for "lunch break" among the team), and one at midnight. That way you get a tested build from the morning's work, and one from the afternoon's work.
Using the Release Default Template, you can target your scheduled builds to just go as far as your "dev" (/test/integration/whatever you call it) stage. When you're ready to actually release a build, you can kick off a new release using that specific build that targets Production and let it go through all your stages normally.
Don't get tripped up on the 'Release' word. In MS Release Management (RM), creating a Release does not necessarily mean you will have this code delivered to your customers / not even that it has the quality to move out of dev. It only means you are putting a version of the code on your Release Path. This version/release can stop right in the first stage and that is ok.
Let's say you have a Release Path consisting of Dev, QA, Prod. In the course of a month, you may end up releasing 100 times in Dev, but only 5 times in QA and once in Prod.
You should drive to get each check-in deployed and integration tested. If tests takes a long time, only do the minimal during (gated or not) check-in (for example, unit tests + deployment), and the rest in your second stage of Release Path (which should be automatically triggered after first stage completes). It does not matter if second stage takes a long time. As a dev, check-in, once build completes successfully (and first stage), expect the rest to go smoothly and continue on your next task. (Note that only result of the first stage impacts your TFS build).
Most of the time, deployment and rest will run fine and so there won't be any impact to dev. Every now and then, you will have a failure in first stage, now the dev will interrupt his new work and get a resolution asap.
As for the issue that every build is kept indefinitely, for the time being, that is a side effect of RM. Current customers need to do the clean up manually (or script it). In the coming releases, a new retention policy for releases/builds will be put in place to improve this. This has not been worked on yet, but the intention would be to, for example, instruct RM to keep all releases that went to Prod, keep only the last 5 that went to QA and keep only the last 2 that went to Dev.
This is not a simple question, so also the answer must be articulated.
First of all, you will never keep all of your builds; the older a build, the less interesting to anyone; a build that doesn't get deployed in production is overtaken by builds that reaches that stage.
A team must agree on the criteria that makes a build interesting to keep around and how long to keep it. Define a policy for builds shipped to production or customers: how long do you support them? Until the next release, until the following one, for five years? Potentially shippable builds, still not in your customers' hands, are superseded by newer, so you can use a numeric or a temporal criteria (TFS implements only the first, as the second is more error-prone). Often you have more than one shippable build, when you want a safety net option and being able select from a pool which deliver (the one with more manageable bugs).
The TFS "Retain Indefinitely" should be used when you cannot automate the previous criteria, so you switch to a manually implemented policy. Indefinitely is not forever, means for an unknown time interval.
We've got a Jenkins setup where we do incremental builds on SCM change, validate and then if this works do a full build (from scratch). This basically works but we waste time doing full builds during the day that we don't normally use.
I know we could trigger full builds every night, but many of our branches won't change for a few days - and then we might get a rush of changes. Thus building every branch every night is wasteful too.
What I really want is some mechanism where we only do the full builds once (say at night) if there has been an SCM change and the incremental build and validate worked - there is no point auto-triggering full builds where the incremental build and validate failed. Actually just "the incremental build and validate worked" should suffice - as these normally just run on SCM change.
Any suggestions? Is there some Jenkins extension that would help with this?
To achieve what you've asked for you can create a new job that is the same as your existing one, but have it only poll the SCM once a day, for a nightly build.
Set the schedule to something like this: H H(0-5) * * *.
In your original job, remove the post-build triggering of a full build.
That will give you pretty much what you've asked for, except the nightly build will do an incremental build and then a full build if the incremental one succeeded, rather than just checking the result of the last incremental build.
BUT...
What is the cost of the 'waste' you are trying to avoid? How much does running a full build every night actually cost you? And wouldn't you be better off finding out when the full build is broken as soon as possible, i.e. during the day when it was broken rather than only the following morning?
Environment: TFS 2010
I met a strange issue on the TFS 2010.
I create a rolling build, and set it should be triggered no more often than every 30 minutes.
Usually, it works fine. I can find the build was triggered several times one day.
Then there is a long vacation and after I came back, the rolling build was not triggered in the last two days.
There is nothing changed for the build definition and TFS server.
It is very strange.
Does anyone know the reason or have the same situation?
BTW, I have a little question for rolling builds. That is, Rolling builds work when there are accumulate check-ins until the prior build finishes. If 1:00 AM, a rolling build was triggered, it will finish at 1:20. At 1:10 some new code was checked in, an other build such as nightly build was triggered before 1:20. Question: Is the rolling build triggered at 1:30?
The whole point of rolling builds is so they don't build up in a queue, basically it means if anyone checks in while a build is happening it won't trigger a build.
If you set a time, eg 30 minutes, it won't ever build within 30 minutes of a previous build.
For the next build to happen you need to check in again outside of those conditions (eg 30 minutes later)