Removing Deployment Friction With Push-To-Deploy

appengineAt work we use CloudFoundry as our PaaS, but I also like to keep informed about what other platforms do.

Google AppEngine Introduces Push-To-Deploy

Google AppEngine recently added an interesting feature: Push-to-Deploy through Git.

With Push-To-Deploy, you can simply push your code to a Git repository to get your code deployed on AppEngine.

This Git repository is maintained by Google and tied to your cloud account. I guess this is implemented using the post-receive Git server hook.

Push-To-Deploy Removes Friction

What I like about this feature is that it removes some friction from the deployment process: you no longer need to know about how to deploy your application on AppEngine.

Push-To-Deploy inches us closer to a Frictionless Development Environment (FDE). The two most likely candidates to become the FDE of choice both support Git, so it’s easy to use Push-To-Deploy in both Orion and Cloud9.

More Friction Remains

LubricationOf course, this is only a small step and a lot more work needs to be done before we really have an FDE.

In my ideal world, for any change that I make the FDE would automatically run the tests and code checkers in the background and, when successful, push the changes to a development branch to make them available for my co-workers.

To make this efficient, only tests that could potentially have been impacted by the changes would run, and they would run in parallel in the cloud. When specified criteria are matched, changes on the development branch would propagate to master and, using Push-To-Deploy, to production.

Although this is all far far away, every step is to be applauded, and I hope other PaaS providers will follow Google’s example.

What Do You Think?

Do you use Google AppEngine? Git? Would you use Push-To-Deploy? Would you like to see a similar feature in CloudFoundry or another PaaS?

Please leave a comment.

How To Remove Friction From Your Version Control Experience

ErrorLast week, I spend several days fixing a bug that only surfaced in a distributed environment.

I felt pressure to fix it quickly, because our continuous integration build was red, and we treat that as a “stop the line” event.

Then I came across a post from Tomasz Nurkiewicz who claims that breaking the build is not a crime.

Tomasz argues that a better way to organize software development is to make sure that breaking changes don’t affect your team mates. I agree.

Broken Builds Create Friction

Breaking changes from your co-workers are a form of friction, since they take away time and focus from your job. Tomasz’ setup has less friction than ours.

But I feel we can do better still. In a perfect Frictionless Development Environment (FDE), all friction is removed. So what would that look like with regard to version control?

With current version control systems, there is lots of friction. I complained about Perforce before because of that.

Git is much better, but even then there are steps that have to be performed that take away focus from the real goal you’re trying to achieve: solving the customer’s problem using software.

For instance, you still have to create a new topic branch to work on. And you have to merge it with the main development line. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to do that.

Frictionless Version Control

version-controlSo how would a Frictionless Development Environment do version control for us?

Knowing when to create a branch is easy.

All work happens on a topic branch, so every time you start to work on something, the FDE could create a new branch.

The problem is knowing when to merge. But even this is not as hard as it seems.

You’re done with your current work item (user story or whatever you want to call it) when it’s coded, all the tests pass, and the code is clean.

So how would the FDE know when you’re done thinking of new tests for the story?

Well, if you practice Behavior-Driven Development (BDD), you start out with defining the behavior of the story in automated tests. So the story is functionally complete when there is a BDD test for it, and all scenarios in that test pass.

Now we’re left with figuring out when the code is clean. Most teams have a process for deciding this too. For instance, code is clean when static code analysis tools like PMD, CheckStyle, and FindBugs give no warnings.

Some people will argue that we need a minimum amount of code coverage from our tests as well. Or that the code needs to be reviewed by a co-worker. Or that Fortify must not find security vulnerabilities. That’s fine.

pipelineThe basic point is that we can formally define a pipeline of processes that we want to run automatically.

At each stage of the pipeline can we reject the work. Only when all stages complete successfully, are we done.

And then the FDE can simply merge the branch with the main line, and delete it. Zero friction from version control.

What do you think?

Would you like to lubricate your version control experience? Do you think an automated branching strategy as outlined above would work?

The verdict on Perforce

At work, I’m now forced to use the Perforce version control system, since that’s what our company has standardized upon. I’ve had some bad feelings about that from the start (based on reading about it), but I’ve hold off on publicizing them so I could give Perforce a fair chance. After all, I have been wrong before ;). So now that I’ve worked with it for several months, here’s my verdict.

The Perforce slogan is Perforce, The Fast Software Configuration Management System. So they’re basically claiming that they are faster than their competitors. How does this claim hold up?

That question is not so easy to answer, since their competitors are not a homogeneous bunch. But let’s look at one category of competitors: the distributed version control systems. The most well-known of these are Git, Bazaar, and Mercurial. Interestingly, Git calls itself The fast version control system and Mercurial’s slogan is Work easier, Work faster.

Distributed version control systems work locally, meaning they don’t need a network connection. Contrast this with Perforce, that needs a network connection for everything. And I mean everything, to a ridiculous level. For instance, even the help command needs a network connection:

$ p4 help
Perforce client error:
        Connect to server failed; check $P4PORT.
        TCP connect to perforce failed.
        perforce: host unknown.

Now, obviously network access is going to slow things down a lot, so it’s difficult to see how Perforce can still beat their competitors on speed. And my experience has been very clear: it doesn’t! In fact, Perforce is very slow. Now obviously, that depends on your network bandwidth, so your mileage may vary.

But it gets worse. My primary interface to Perforce is not the command line client, but the Eclipse integration, P4WSAD. And although Perforce claims that this is the best of both worlds, my opinion is that this is a piece of crap. There, I said it. P4WSAD makes my life as a developer a hell.

Perforce makes all files read-only by default. Only once you’ve checked out a file, will it become writable. And, you’ve guessed it, that requires network access. In practice, this means that everytime I want to change some source file, I have to wait until P4SWAD checks out the file, which can take up to five seconds! This is extremely annoying, because it completely breaks my flow. And if you think one file is bad, try doing a refactoring that affects multiple files… It is reason enough for me to not ever want to work with Perforce again.

BTW, it is interesting to note that none of the aforementioned distributed version control systems appear in Perforce’s comparison with its competitors.

More connection troubles
Now if all this slowness actually bought me some nice features, that could change the story, right? Well, yes, it could. But it doesn’t.

The same cause for slowness, accessing the network for everything, is also limiting what you can do.

For instance, I have a long commute in the train, so I like to work there. And guess what, I don’t have an internet connection there. Not to worry, Perforce has a workaround called offline mode. This basically means that P4WSAD will nag you for confirmation every time you try to change a file.

It also means that it looses track of which files were changed, so that when you get back online, you forget to submit some files and break the build. That has happened to me quite a few times now, because the reconcile feature is not available in P4SWAD. You need to use the Perforce Visual Client (P4V) for that. So now I need to use two tools to get my work done.

Another limitation of P4WSAD is that it will block a refactoring affecting a file that you haven’t already modified since you went offline. This means you have to hunt down all the places where, say, a method to be renamed is used, and force a “checkout” of all those places by changing something in the file. Only then can you do your refactoring. Very annoying.

Perforce claims to support transactions, which is a must for a source code control system. We don’t want our automated build to pick up part of a set of changed files and break because of that!

Unfortunately, transactions in Perforce only work when they work. In other words, when an error occurs, it’s very well possible that Perforce will have comitted only a subset of the files in the “transaction”. This is not a really big deal, as it doesn’t happen all that often, but still.

Perforce is completely file based; it doesn’t track directories. So it’s impossible to add an empty directory to a repository, for instance. Also, when someone removes a directory, Perforce by default will leave empty directories on people’s file systems when they synchronize. There is a setting to fix that, but it’s set to the wrong value by default. I consider this only a minor flaw, but it’s annoying nonetheless.

Would I recommend Perforce to anybody? Not really. I think there are better alternatives out there. Free ones, mind you. So save yourself some money and check out (pun intended) Git, Mercurial, or Bazaar.