Unfortunately right when we were trying to deploy a hot-fix to production, our CI can't clone the PR to run tests.
What do other folks use to avoid this situation? Have a Gitlab instance or similar that you can pull from instead for CI?
What do other folks use to avoid this situation? Have a Gitlab instance or similar that you can pull from instead for CI?
1. Use as little of the configuration language provided by the CI as possible (prefer shellscripts that you call in CI instead of having each step in a YAML config for example)
2. Make sure static content is in a Git repository (same or different) that is also available on multiple SCM systems (I usually use GitHub + GitLab mirroring + a private VPS that also mirrors GitHub)
3. Have a bastion host for doing updates, make CI push changes via bastion host and have at least four devs (if you're at that scale, otherwise you just) with access to it, requiring multisig of 2 of them to access
Now when the service goes down, you just need 2 developers to sign the login for the bastion host, then manually run the shellscript locally to push your update. You'll always be able to update now :)
Multiple remotes can help and is certainly something you should have as a backup. However I don't think it solves the root cause which is how the CI is configured.
I'm a firm proponent of keeping your CI as dumb as possible. That's not to say unsophisticated, I mean it should be decoupled as much as possible from the the how of the actions it's taking.
If you have a CI pipeline that consists of Clone, Build, Test, and Deploy stages, then I think your actual CI configuration should look as close as possible to the following pseudocode:
stages:
- clone: git clone $REPO_URL
- build: sh ./scripts/build.sh
- test: sh ./scripts/test.sh
- deploy: sh ./scripts/deploy.sh
This doesn't rule out using CI specific features, such as an approval stage. Just don't mix CI level operations with project level operations.
As a side benefit this helps avoid a bunch of commits that look like "Actually really for real this time fix deployment for srs" by letting you run these stages manually during development instead of pushing something you think works.
More importantly though, it makes it substantially easier to migrate between CI providers, recover from a CI/VCS crash, or onboard someone who's responsible for CI but maybe hasn't used your specific tool.
Or take your local copy and use git-fu commands to create a bare repo of it that you can compress and put somewhere like S3. Then download it in CI and checkout from that.
Or just tarball your app source, who cares about git, and do the same (s3, give it a direct path to the asset)
All of this is potentialy useless info though. Hard to say without understanding how your CI works. If all you need is the source code, there are a half dozen ways to get that source into CI without git.
In 2021, basic business continuity plans for software companies should incorporate these sorts of concerns. You should have a published procedure somewhere that a person could follow for producing the final build artifacts of your software on any machine once backups are made available. Situations like these are why I check in 100% of my dependencies to source control as well.
The anti-pattern to watch out for is long, complex scripts that live in your CI system’s config file. These are hard to test and replicate when you need to.
Too many times I suggested everyone to begin self-hosting or have that as a backup but once again some think 'going all in on GitHub' is worth it. (It really is not the case)
Don't read too much into it and comment freely as normal. In the end, it's just internet points.
Gitlab, mirrored repo basically.
Don't use Microsoft?