Currently we are using Jenkins as our CI server. But we are not completely
satisfied with it. The main problem with Jenkins is that it is overloaded
with features which makes the UI quite messy. We also hit a problem with
upgrading it to a never version, which was probably a conflict between war
installer and a debian package. After the upgrade it stopped working and we
spent the afternoon bringing it back to life. We are also missing support for
projects grouping. And last but not least to make it work you need to install
bunch of plugins, which then you need to keep up to date and maintain.
Taking this into account we started to search for other solutions. Of course
there’s no such thing as the perfect CI server, but maybe there’s one that
suits our needs better than Jenkins.
Most of our projects are Ruby applications, but we also have couple of
projects written in other languages (including some iOS applications), so we
would appreciate support for those languages.
Since most of our projects are web application possibility of mirroring
deployment development as close as possible is important. It will allow us to
check if it’s safe to move to never version of the os or check dependencies
Thing you do on CI server at least once for each project is setting up a build.
This step needs to be easy! Spending hours on setting up a project on CI server
is not what you want. It’s also important that you can easily change existing
configurations. And last – but not least – that builds are run only when needed
(that means only when the source code actually had been changed).
Setting up job is one thing. Setting up server itself is another (I checked
some software as a service solutions as well as installable CI servers). You
don’t want to spend a lot of time on setting it up, there’s a lot of more
interesting things to do out there. The easier the set up procedure is – the
better. The solutions I tested support a distributed architecture (there’s a
master server and the build is run by worker). This is a good feature
(especially on installable software) as it makes resource management a lot
easier. Not to mention that it can help in mirroring deployment environment.
Another important thing is project grouping. Let’s say you have group of
applications forming one project. It’s needles to say that if there’s problem
with one of them – there’s problem with the whole project. Grouping all of them
together under one project makes monitoring much easier. It would also be good
to have possibility to group builds that are using the same repository but are
building different branches.
If something goes wrong it’s nice to receive a notification. In the office we
have a special display which shows the status of our projects on Jenkins
and turns red if the build is red. This is nice and we want to keep it but if
it’s possible to send some notifications to the projects’ developers team and/or
to the one who broke the build it would be great.
You will also spend some time on looking at the tests output. In most cases
these are just console logs but the way of displaying them is important when you
want to find which test failed. It would also be helpful to have more
informations here. Some statistics (for example build and build steps duration,
duration of individual tests etc.) are very welcome. If it is possible to
include some additional informations (like test coverage, code metrics, code
formatting issues) then why not use it?
Sometimes a customer wants to see the test results. To allow him access to the
server a user management system is essential so that the access to specific
projects can be granted.
To sum up key features that are important to us are:
- easy setup and low maintenance cost
- distributed architecture
- possibility of mirroring deployment environment
- easy build configuration and configuration change
- project grouping
- support for ruby applications
- support for iOS applications
- notification system and the API
- nice test result output
- user management system
CI server and software as a service
Trend of moving to the cloud computing had also affected CI servers. There are
more and more solutions that are being developed as a services. Is choosing a
service instead of setting up a server is a good idea?
Well, there’s no right answer for this. As with everything there are some pros
On one hand you neither need infrastructure nor have to set up the application
itself. No doubt that it saves time spent both on maintenance and set up (and
this can be a lot in case of some solutions).
On the other hand you don’t have direct control of the environment (unless it
was taken into consideration by the developers) so if for any reason you
require a newer version of library than the one provided on test machine or if
you want to test against another os or you want to affect environment any other
way it requires contact with the support.
Another thing is that most of those solutions are tied to Github account. This
means two things. First you need to keep your code on Github, and this is not a
big deal. But the other one might hurt. It does not support user management. So
granting access to customer becomes a lot harder.
And last but not least – if you have a private projects using software as a
service solution means that you have to trust another party.
Software as a service solutions
Semaphore is hosted CI
application for ruby. It supports Github based collaboration and is integrated
with Github. Configuration is easy and builds are really fast. Various kinds of
notifications and aggregation of build history are supported.
Unfortunately it’s only for ruby, but most our projects are in ruby so it’s
Registration is really fast and easy. After entering email and choosing a
password the account is linked to Github. User can choose if he likes to build
only public or both public and private projects. The system is distributed –
every build is executed on separate virtual machine. This seems promising but
unfortunately one cannot do much in terms of tweaking virtual machine options
during the build setup. There’s possibility of choosing ruby version, database
server (if needed). User also has access to couple of environment variables, but
Build configuration is really easy. To add new project you just need to click a
button, choose project from your imported Github repositories list (admin access
for proper hook configuration) and select a branch. Semaphore then scans the
source code and predicts the build configuration. This works surprisingly well.
After customization of generated config you’re good to go. Only selected
branches are built and post post receive hooks are configured by the service so
no additional tweaking is required for building only on source code change is
required. The configuration panel is very clear and tweaking build configuration
is super easy.
Unfortunately build setting are shared by all branches so if you need to build
one branch against different ruby version or database or with just a different
build script you have to add same Github project with new settings again.
Adding new project is not a big deal but it interferes with project grouping.
The only grouping that is available is via repositories. Unfortunately if you
add a repository for a second time (should it be a mistake or because of
configuration differences) both will be displayed as separate projects. So this
feature is not well supported.
Wide range of notification methods is supported. Unfortunately email
notifications are configured by user. On the other hand other tools (like
hipchat, campfire or webhooks) are supported. There’s also an API which is well
Test output are just raw console logs. But they are grouped by build command
and highlighted depending on the step status. Finding failing tests is relatively
easy. Unfortunately this output is not customizable – you cannot include any
metrics and there are no statistics.
Collaborators are synced with Github so granting access for team members is
simple. The customers would need a Github account. Other option hire is access
via the API.
It’s a really nice service. I very much like the simplicity of adding new
project and source code scanner which discovers build configuration quite well.
Unfortunately it works only for ruby so using CI for other type of projects
wold require another service.
Travis is distributed build system for
open source community. At the beginning it only allowed public projects,
version that supports private projects is currently in beta. It’s highly
customizable and build configuration is stored in the repository). It started
as a service for ruby projects but it supports other languages too.
You can login with Github account and it will automatically scan for suitable
repositories. The drawback is that pro version supports only private projects.
So if one needs to build both kind of project registration in two services is
required. Also only repositories with admin access are displayed. Similar as
in Semaphore each build is executed on separate virtual machine
but here there are more possibilities of configuring it. Although it’s not
possible to change the os version the machine comes with passwordless sudo and
apt installed. This allows installing all necessary dependencies and
experimenting. There also are some environment variables available.
Creating new job is very easy. Repositories imported from Github are visible
(only those to which user has admin access), and only thing that needs to be
done in the application is flipping a switch to on. Build configuration is kept
in a special yaml file in the source code. It supports wide range of
configuration options (for example ruby version and separate gemfiles for ruby
projects). Validator of configuration file is also available. By default all
branches are being build once the project is added. But the configuration file
allows both white and blacklisting branches. Furthermore it’s possible to mark
that some branches are allowed to fail. This is quite useful for some
Unfortunately there’s no project grouping on Travis. Although builds are
tied to branch and repository the project status is always the status of the
most recent build, which is quite confusing.
Travis started as a service for ruby application and support for them is
good. As virtual machines provided by the service are running on server edition
of Ubuntu testing iOS applications is not possible here.
Notifications can be configured and a developer who broke the build will
receive an email message. More options are available. Apart from email IRC,
campfire and webhooks are supported. There’s also a very useful link to build
status image which can be for example included in the project readme which is
displayed on Github. There is also well documented API for keeping our CI
display up and running.
Test output are ungrouped console logs, but with colours. It’s quite easy to
detect failure. Unfortunately adding additional data is not possible.
User account is tied to Github which means no access to customers. On the other
hand collaborators are added automatically and have access to the project, and a
link to status image should be enough for showing build status to customers.
I very much like the idea of build configuration being included with the source
code. This makes setup easy and adds possibility of templating. It’s also nice
that user has a possibility of managing the environment at least to some
extent. Status image in Github readme is also pretty cool.
What I don’t like is lack of project grouping. Not separating branches within
the project makes the project status and problem detection quite unclear.
Also it’s a pity that it does not support iOS applications but you cannot have
Circle is a service that is designed to
work with web apps. It’s main features include easy and fast setup, fast test
running and deep customization. It also claims to have very good support. It’s
currently on public beta.
User account is tied to Github and repositories are imported automatically. As
with Semaphore and Travis it runs builds on virtual
machines. What is interesting is a possibility to ssh to the virtual machine
after build. It can help to investigate reasons of a build failure. In terms of
mirroring deployment it’s very similar to Travis. It’s possible to
install dependencies, tweak commands etc.
There are two options for creating a build configuration. One is using a web UI
with a clear build configurator, similar to the one used by
Semaphore. The other option is via YAML file – the same way it’s
handled in Travis. The second one is recommended. The builds are run
only when needed (on the source code change) but this is quite too clever in
this service. It turns out that developer who pushes the code needs to have
active Circle CI account or be added as collaborator for the build to be run.
It’s quite ridiculous. Also there’s no configuration to block a branch from
building or allow failures for a branch. This is not what I would expect.
Unfortunately similar to Travis there is no grouping and the project
status is the status of the build triggered by the last commit. That makes the
result view quite unclear.
There’s pretty good support for ruby application, but it does not work for iOS.
It’s not surprising – it’s targeted for web applications after all.
Email notification can be configured both per user and per project basis. IRC,
campfire and webhooks are supported apart from email. I haven’t found
description of the API but there seems to be some. It’s being changed at the
Test output are just console logs, but grouped and with colours enabled. Adding
additional data is not possible.
There is no user management. You can invite collaborators only when they make a
push to the repository.
Circle has really nice support. I had a failing build and after a while I
received a message from one of the founders asking if I have problems with
setup and offering help. Pretty nice.
Circle is very similar to Travis. I like the possibility to SSH to VM
after build execution but it’s not a killer feature. Support also looks pretty
good. On the other hand it lacks branch blacklisting and/or failure allowing.
Also user management is simply wrong. Although interface looks much nicer I’d
rather go for Travis
Although Bamboo is available both on
demand (as a service) and as installable version in my evaluation I focused on
the latter. It is Continuous Integration and Release management system developed
by Atlassian and is integrating well with their other products. It’s
distributed and supports local agent as well as
Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2). It has nice statistics panel and allows
Server installation is fairly easy. All you need to do is to create
configuration directory and add its path to the settings. Then just run the
server and web setup will guide you through the process.
There are two things worth noting here. First is that installing server it’s
not everything. User also has to configure executables which means adding
commands and their paths as capabilities of the system. Furthermore as each
agent can have its own capabilities this has to be done each time user adds new
agent. Luckily there are plugins which will help with both with ruby and iOS
configuration. Or user can stick to shell scripts. The other thing is that some
additional configuration of the bundled served is required for machines with
multiple IP addresses as it needs to be bound to one of them. It’s well
Bamboo is designed as distributed CI server. Adding remote agents is quite easy
– the setup jar is downloaded on the agent machine and then run with the
master server url as a parameter. Then the setup will guide user. Each agent
has different capabilities, which means that defining available commands is
needed. The advantage of it is that it allows to be as close to deployment
environment as possible.
Github integration for adding project is supported. It’s possible either with
ssh keys or via user account. Pull access is enough for adding the project.
Project can be built in two ways. Either with tasks added by a plugin or with
plain shell scripts. In the first case user select commands from server
capabilities, adds additional parameters (for example which task is to be
executed for rake) and that’s it. In the second one user just defines which
shell script should be run and the shell script itself contains the build
configuration. Configuration panel is complex but clear, editing build
configuration is easy.
Project grouping in Bamboo looks good. They are grouped inside plans.
It’s possible to have multiple repositories under a plan. So it looks like the
exact kind of grouping we require.
Wide range of notification is supported (incl. email, hipChat and IMs). It’s
also possible to notify developer who broke the build and configuring
notifications is fairly easy. There’s also a REST API.
Test output is more detailed than in on service solutions. It’s possible to see
which tests are failing and who broke the build. Some additional statistics are
also available. It’s possible to display additional data using build artifacts.
Bamboo is really good service. What I really like is that’s possible to run it
as on demand or on local server. Also support for remote agents on Amazon EC2
cloud is a nice feature. It’s a pity that there’s no out of the box support
for ruby or iOS application but they are available as plugins. It is also very
good choice for teams already using other software developed by Attlassian.
TeamCity is developed by
JetBrains, the same company that brought RubyMine. It’s very user friendly,
supports nice project grouping. It’s a distributed platform supporting many
languages and having nice IDE integration feature which prevents you from
committing broken code.
Installation of TeamCity if fairly easy and similar to Bamboo. It
requires running bundled server and then the setup will guide user through the
process. After setting up the server there’s need to setup build runners.
TeamCity is designed as distributed service and support the multinode
architecture. Because of which it’s possible to mirror deployment environment
It’s easy to add a new job. Same as with Bamboo user first configures
the repository (unfortunately no Github import) and then build steps and actions
using runners that were set up previously. TeamCity supports intelligent tests
running – test that were added or changed or were failing previously can be run
first so you can know faster if new feature works fine or that the broken test
was fixed. There’s also IDE integration option that can prevent a developer from
pushing a broken code. This might be useful. Projects are nicely grouped and
can share parts of configuration.
Ruby application can be tested either via shell scripts or via Rake runner. It
supports RVM settings and .rvmrc files. There’s also Xcode project runner which
makes testing iOS applications a lot simpler than custom shell scripts. The good
part is that they’re built in and no installation of additional plugins is
As with Bamboo there are lot of options for configuring
notifications and many options are available.
I think that TeamCity has the best test output of all the presented tools.
There are logs, detailed statistics. Failed tests are easily visible, it’s
possible to add additional output as build artifacts. What I like very much is
showing duration of test suites as well as individual test.
I really like this one. Support for ruby and iOS applications almost out of the
box + intelligent tests running + nice test results and statistics + free
license and a long trial period makes it definitely worth trying.
Jenkins is a actively developed fork of
Hudson. It supports plenty of languages. There is possibility to have
distributed architecture (via slave nodes). It has a lot of plugins and active
community. And last but not least – it’s open source project.
As with Bamboo and TeamCity server setup is as easy as
running a downloaded war file and following instructions. But after setting up
a server there’s a need for download and setup bunch of plugins. Then there is a
need to manage those plugins and keeping them up to date. It’s also worth
noticing that jenkins is also available as linux package but this version tend
to cause troubles with updating straight from jenkins.
Build configuration panel is quite messy. One will eventually get used to it but
it can be done better. Project grouping is not directly supported. It’s possible
to achieve grouping with views and creating additional jobs (one for running all
jobs, and another one for gathering test results from subjobs) but this requires
some additional work and post build scripts.
Email notifications are supported directly, lost of other are available as
plugins. It’s possible to notify developer who broke the build but this require
additional configuration and involves some user management.
Test output is pretty disappointing. By default jenkins displays only plain
console logs. It’s possible to add additional data but it requires plugins.
Default user management and permission system does not work very well and the
panel is quite counter intuitive. Fortunately there’s a plugin which does it the
Jenkins is good piece of software. But the problem is that there’s too much
modularity. There’s a plugin for everything so first you need to find and
install the right one and then you need to manage them all and keep them up to
date. This considerably increases the time that needs to be spent on
maintenance. Also managing and configuring jenkins is not as easy as it could be
because of the UI which is quite messy. The lack of project grouping is really
painful and the workaround is not completely satisfactory (not to mention that
it is quite time consuming when done for the first time). To sum up I’d say that
jenkins is good for start, but when you start to require something more you
might find out that it actually is a good idea to switch to another solution.
In the table below you will find a comparison of tested solutions (scales are
1 – 5):
|Ruby applications support||5||5||5||4.5||5||4|
|iOS applications support||–||–||–||4.5||5||4|
|Test results output||3||3||4||4||5||3.5|
There’s no easy answer for the question which CI server solution to choose.
In the software as a service group my favourite is Travis. I really
like the idea of keeping build configuration with the source code. In the
installable group TeamCity looks very good. Mainly because of
smart test running and very detailed test output. Also good support for the kind
of project we develop is significant. And there’s a hybrid Bamboo if
you cannot decide whether to use installable software or not.