Consistency and repeatability in builds
A significant challenge in software development is to ensure consistency and repeatability; from building binaries, to running tests, to deploying in production, we strive to make sure that different people at different times will build the same binary, get the same test results, obtain the same application behaviour we do now.
This is very important because without repeatability bug reports become extremely difficult to address, we can’t trust a rollback to restore functionality on a broken application, we waste time debugging phantom problems (“works for me”).
Lately new concerns are starting to surface; for security-sensitive software (such as Tor, or Bitcoin Core) there is interest in so called “deterministic” builds (100% reproducible builds, down to the the single bits in the binary) so that anyone can independently verify the authenticity of binary distributions.
Easier said than done
Ensuring repeatability throughout the development process requires to tackle different issues in each phase.
- source code tracking must be established with a version control system such as Git, Mercurial or Subversion
- library dependencies need to be tracked with a tool such as Ivy, Maven, rubygems or similar
- build scripts and configuration need to be versioned together with code
- build dependencies, compilers, build tool versions need to be tracked
- test environments (databases, message brokers, mock APIs) must be provisioned and connected
- clean test data must be tracked and loaded when needed
- machines configuration must be managed with a tool such as Chef or Puppet
- binary dependencies, such as system-wide libraries and binaries, must be tracked
Moreover, several crosscutting concerns must also be addressed, among those:
- a clean environment must be guaranteed in each stage: no untracked source files, no old, stray libraries on the build machine, stale data in the test or production environment influencing the execution.
- adequate performance in each step must be maintained: build and test times must be kept reasonably low
Issues in the build and test phases
If we focus on the build and test phases only, we find out that there is a pattern of common challenges and issues in most projects we’ve met. Some of these are:
Complex environment setup: a lot of time is wasted in manual setup of both developer workstations and the CI system. Mistakes are also common, such as wrong versions of compilers, interpreters or build tools, incompatible libraries, missing packages.
Version conflict: keeping multiple versions of the same tools on one machine can be cumbersome, more so when we factor in the need for different runtimes and libraries for different projects (common examples are ruby and python are common, but also java lately).
Missing test dependencies for integration and acceptance tests, such as databases, message brokers, mock APIs.
Stale artifacts and data on build and test machines, such as stale libraries or executables or stale test data from previous builds or runs.
From Docker’s website:
Docker is an open platform for developers and sysadmins to build, ship, and run distributed applications. […] The Docker Engine container comprises just the application and its dependencies. It runs as an isolated process in userspace on the host operating system, sharing the kernel with other containers. Thus, it enjoys the resource isolation and allocation benefits of VMs.
Docker simplifies application distribution and deployment significantly by guaranteeing portability and standardization of environments; “Dockerized” apps, by bundling together the executable and any other dependency such as libraries, other executables and packages, are completely portable and can run anywhere (on physical or virtualized hardware, both local and remote).
Docker for building
Docker has been used (and praised) extensively for simplifying deployments, but it has a far wider reach than that, and has been used lately to simplify the build and test phases.
The idea is pretty simple:
- create a Docker image for each different build environment and for any required test dependency, providing all the system libraries, build tools and compilers required. Or, better yet, use the ones already available on Docker hub and personalize when needed.
- create a Dockerfile, based on the build image, and configure it to run your build script
- create/run a new container from the image
- have your build script link/clone the source code from your project inside the container
- perform the build
- bring up any required test environment (again, as Docker containers)
- execute the tests
- finally, copy the artifacts out and destroy the containers, so that the next
- build will run from a clean, fresh environment.
Everything can be set up from something as simple as a good old Makefile, such as this, that we use to build Go projects:
(Unfortunately line numbers are missing due to a bug in Jekyll code formatting, working on it)
5: the "dockerbuild" target gets executed by the docker host 8: --rm=true discards the container after the build 9-11: add data volumes for the source tree, Makefile and output directory 12: specify the working directory inside the container 13: golang build image, version 1.4 14: the actual build command to run in the container, calling make 16: the "build" target gets executed inside the docker container, and performs the actual build
This approach has lots of advantages:
- drastically simpler setup for newcomers: the complete build and test environment is specified formally, to set up a new workstation (or a new CI build system) all you need is to have Docker and Git/Mercurial installed, clone a repo and start the build.
- build environment standardization: your local build environment is identical to anyone else’s and to the CI system’s.
- no version conflict: you don’t need to install several different compiler or interpreter versions on your workstation or the CI machine, you’ll have a different image for each one and will run it inside its own Docker container.
- test dependencies are tracked and brought up, clean, at every build being recreated from scratch every time, the build and test environments are always clean
Too much effort? Try Drone
Drone is an opensource CI system built with this approach in mind; complete with a web UI and available also as a service, it provides a collection of pre-configured containers for different build environments (Scala, Go, Java, Ruby, you name it) and another for test dependencies (databases, brokers, etc).
It provides most of the plumbing, a complete CI system and only requires minimal configuration; a typical build config file looks like this:
Many areas are still work in progress, but there is already enough to get you started and lots of activity around it.
Assumptions, open issues and next steps
Some assorted notes and thoughts:
- to be able to reproduce a past build, you need to have a copy of all the parts of the build process: sources, build-time libraries (jar packages, gems) and build environment. For dockerized builds, this means storing locally (in some sort of local docker registry) the docker containers you’ll use for your build to ensure they are available when you need them.
- we assume that any artifact used in the build process, including dockerized build environments, are versioned and immutable, that is, nobody will push a different artifact with the same version of a previous one.
rebuilding from scratch every time can be slow; you can work around that by, e.g. using a local artifact caching repo for gems, jars and such (again, assuming artifacts being immutable).
Drone.io has support for folder caching inside build environments (e.g. to cache
~/.m2/repository), but it breaks when deploying remotely; it might also be problematic if artifacts from the build go into the folder you are caching, since previous broken builds might taint your environment.
- security sensitive builds for projects like Tor or Bitcoin Core also require some kind of digital signature verification on all the artifacts and configuration involved; this is considerably more complex than what we’re trying to introduce here.
- finally, other app container technologies are being developed, one of them being Rocket. It would be interesting to compare these new alternatives from the point of view of build automation.