Stories with Tag Continuous Integration

• Deploy from local to production (self-hosted)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-08 18:54:17

  Verbose tl;dr

  This GitHub repository, airo, offers a self-hosting solution for deploying code from a local machine to a production server. It utilizes SSH and rsync to synchronize files and execute commands remotely, simplifying the deployment process. The repository's scripts facilitate tasks like restarting services, transferring only changed files for efficient updates, and handling pre- and post-deployment hooks for customized actions. Essentially, airo provides a streamlined, automated approach to deploying and managing applications on a self-hosted server, eliminating the need for manual intervention and complex configurations.

  This GitHub repository, titled "airo," details a process for deploying a locally developed application to a self-hosted production environment. The provided method utilizes Docker and Docker Compose for containerization and orchestration, simplifying the deployment and management of the application across different environments.

  The deployment process begins with building a Docker image of the application locally. This image encapsulates all the necessary dependencies and code to run the application, ensuring consistency between development and production. The docker build command is used for this purpose, referencing a Dockerfile that outlines the image construction process. This Dockerfile likely includes instructions for selecting a base image (e.g., containing a specific operating system and programming language runtime), copying the application code, installing dependencies, and setting up any required environment variables.

  Following the image creation, the built image is tagged with a specific version or identifier. This tagging facilitates easy management and tracking of different versions of the application. The author uses a timestamp-based tagging convention in the example, ensuring unique identification for each build.

  The next step involves pushing the tagged Docker image to a remote container registry. The example uses Docker Hub, a popular cloud-based registry service, but any compatible registry can be employed. Pushing the image to a registry makes it accessible from the production server, enabling remote deployment. This step requires authentication with the registry, typically using credentials stored locally.

  Once the image is available in the registry, the deployment process shifts to the production server. On the server, Docker Compose is used to define and manage the application's services. A docker-compose.yml file specifies the services that comprise the application, including the application itself, any necessary databases, and other supporting components. This file defines the image to use for each service (pulled from the registry), environment variables, port mappings, and dependencies between services.

  Finally, the docker-compose pull command retrieves the latest version of the specified images from the registry to the production server. Then, docker-compose up -d starts the application and its associated services in detached mode, meaning they run in the background. This command also handles the creation and management of Docker containers based on the definitions in the docker-compose.yml file. The -d flag ensures that the terminal isn't tied to the running containers, allowing other tasks to be performed on the server. This process effectively deploys the application from the local development environment to the self-hosted production server, using Docker and Docker Compose to ensure consistency and simplify the management of the application lifecycle.

  • deployment
  • self-hosting
  • Local Development
  • production environment
  • airo
  • Continuous Integration
  • Continuous Deployment
  • CI/CD
  • git
  • GitHub
  • version control
  • software release
  • infrastructure
  • DevOps

  Summary of Comments ( 60 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43302495

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters generally expressed skepticism about Airo's value proposition. Some questioned the need for another deployment tool in an already crowded landscape, especially given Airo's apparent similarity to existing solutions like Ansible, Fabric, or even simpler shell scripts. Others pointed out potential security concerns with the agent-based approach, suggesting it might introduce unnecessary vulnerabilities. The lack of support for popular cloud providers like AWS, Azure, or GCP was also a common criticism, limiting Airo's usefulness for many developers. A few commenters highlighted the project's early stage and potential, but overall the reception was cautious, with many suggesting existing tools might be a better choice for most deployment scenarios.

  The Hacker News post titled "Deploy from local to production (self-hosted)" links to a GitHub repository for a project called Airo. The discussion in the comments section is quite limited, with only a handful of comments focusing mostly on comparisons to existing tools and expressing skepticism about Airo's value proposition.

  One commenter draws a parallel to rsync, a widely-used file synchronization tool, suggesting that Airo essentially replicates rsync's functionality with added complexity. They question the need for Airo when rsync already offers a robust and established solution for deploying files.

  Another comment builds upon this by mentioning tools like ansible-pull, fabric, and make, highlighting the existing ecosystem of deployment solutions that already address the problems Airo attempts to solve. The commenter implies that Airo might be over-engineered and doesn't offer enough significant advantages over these more established alternatives.

  Further skepticism is expressed regarding the lack of clarity surrounding Airo's benefits. One commenter wonders why someone would choose Airo over established solutions, especially given the perceived lack of a compelling reason to switch. This comment highlights the importance of clearly articulating the value proposition of a new tool, especially in a crowded space with established alternatives.

  Finally, a comment points out the potential security implications of using ssh keys for authentication, suggesting that an attacker gaining access to the key could compromise the entire server. This comment raises a valid concern about the security model employed by Airo, suggesting that alternative authentication mechanisms might be more secure.

  In summary, the comments on the Hacker News post express significant skepticism about Airo. They predominantly focus on comparisons to existing deployment tools like rsync, ansible-pull, fabric, and make, questioning the necessity and value proposition of Airo. Concerns are also raised regarding the security implications of using ssh keys for authentication. The overall sentiment suggests that Airo needs to demonstrate more clearly its advantages over existing solutions to gain wider adoption.

• (Reasonably) secure Azure Pipelines on-prem deployments

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-04 16:25:54

  Verbose tl;dr

  This blog post details a method for securely deploying applications to on-premises IIS servers from Azure Pipelines without exposing credentials. The author leverages a self-hosted agent running on the target server, combined with a pre-configured deployment group. Instead of storing sensitive information directly in the pipeline, the approach uses Azure Key Vault to securely store the application pool password. The pipeline then retrieves this password during the deployment process and utilizes it with the powershell task in Azure Pipelines to update the application pool, ensuring credentials are not exposed in plain text within the pipeline or agent's environment. This setup enables automated deployments while mitigating the security risks associated with managing credentials for on-premises deployments.

  This blog post details a method for implementing reasonably secure deployments from Azure Pipelines to on-premises IIS servers, focusing on minimizing the attack surface and adhering to the principle of least privilege. The author outlines a process that avoids storing sensitive credentials like passwords directly within the pipeline definition, leveraging Azure Key Vault for secure secret management and Managed Identities for authentication.

  The core strategy revolves around establishing a dedicated deployment user account on the target IIS server. This account is granted only the necessary permissions to deploy and manage the specific application, adhering to the principle of least privilege. It explicitly does not have administrative privileges. This minimizes the potential damage if the account is compromised.

  The deployment process utilizes a self-hosted agent running on the on-premises server, which is registered with the Azure DevOps project. Critically, the agent itself doesn't hold any secrets. Instead, it leverages a Managed Identity assigned to the Azure DevOps project. This Managed Identity has permissions to access the necessary secrets stored in Azure Key Vault. During the deployment process, the pipeline instructs the agent to retrieve the deployment user's credentials from Key Vault using its Managed Identity. These credentials are then used to authenticate with the IIS server and perform the deployment tasks.

  The actual deployment steps involve using the msdeploy.exe utility. The retrieved credentials are passed securely to msdeploy.exe to authenticate with the target IIS server. The pipeline script then uses msdeploy.exe to sync the application files from the build artifact to the IIS server and configure the application within IIS. The author emphasizes the importance of using the -declareParamFile option with msdeploy.exe to avoid exposing sensitive information in the pipeline logs. This approach stores the sensitive deployment parameters in a separate file that is accessed securely during the deployment process.

  The author also touches on securing the web.config file. They recommend excluding the web.config from the initial deployment and instead using a separate, dedicated step to deploy a transformed web.config file. This transformed configuration file contains environment-specific settings retrieved securely from Azure Key Vault, ensuring sensitive information like connection strings isn't embedded in the application's source code. This approach separates configuration from code and allows for environment-specific configurations without compromising security.

  Finally, the post briefly discusses the option of using deployment groups as an alternative to individual self-hosted agents. However, the core principles of using Managed Identities, Azure Key Vault, and least privilege remain the same regardless of the chosen deployment method. The author advocates for this approach as a more secure and manageable way to handle deployments to on-premises IIS servers compared to traditional methods relying on stored credentials.

  • Azure DevOps
  • Azure Pipelines
  • On-Premises
  • deployment
  • Security
  • IIS
  • Self-Hosted Agents
  • DevOps
  • CI/CD
  • Continuous Integration
  • Continuous Deployment
  • Infrastructure as Code
  • Windows Server
  • .NET

  Summary of Comments ( 32 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43256802

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Hacker News comments generally praise the article for its practical approach to a complex problem (deploying to on-premise IIS from Azure DevOps). Several commenters appreciate the focus on simplicity and avoiding over-engineering, highlighting the use of built-in Azure DevOps features and PowerShell over more complex solutions. One commenter suggests using deployment groups instead of self-hosted agents for better security and manageability. Another emphasizes the importance of robust rollback procedures, which the article acknowledges but doesn't delve into deeply. A few commenters discuss alternative approaches, like using containers or configuration management tools, but acknowledge the validity of the author's simpler method for specific scenarios. Overall, the comments agree that the article provides a useful, real-world example of secure-enough deployments.

  The Hacker News post titled "(Reasonably) secure Azure Pipelines on-prem deployments" discussing the linked blog post about secure deployments to IIS using Azure DevOps has generated a small but focused discussion thread. Several commenters engage with the specific technical details and offer alternative approaches or raise potential concerns.

  One commenter points out a potential vulnerability if the deployment agent's machine account, which has write access to the web application directory, is compromised. They suggest an alternative where the build agent packages the application, and a separate deployment process, running under a more restricted account, handles the extraction and deployment to IIS. This separation of duties limits the potential damage from a compromised build agent.

  Another commenter discusses the complexity and challenges associated with using tools like Ansible for deployments, particularly in Windows environments. They acknowledge the benefits of such tools but highlight the effort required to learn and maintain them, contrasting it with the relative simplicity of the approach presented in the blog post. This commenter suggests that while more sophisticated tools exist, the author's method might be a pragmatic solution for those prioritizing simplicity and ease of implementation.

  A third commenter questions the security of storing deployment credentials within Azure DevOps, even if encrypted. They propose using a dedicated secrets management solution like Azure Key Vault for storing sensitive information and retrieving it during the deployment process. This approach enhances security by decoupling the secrets from the deployment pipeline itself.

  The overall sentiment in the comments is one of cautious appreciation for the author's approach. Commenters acknowledge the practicality of the solution while also highlighting potential security concerns and suggesting alternative, more secure, albeit potentially more complex, methods. The discussion revolves around the trade-off between simplicity and security in real-world deployment scenarios. No one outright criticizes the author's method but instead offer constructive feedback and alternative perspectives for achieving secure deployments.

• I'll think twice before using GitHub Actions again

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-20 03:41:27

  Verbose tl;dr

  The author details a frustrating experience with GitHub Actions where a seemingly simple workflow to build and deploy a static website became incredibly complex and time-consuming due to caching issues. Despite attempting various caching strategies and workarounds, builds remained slow and unpredictable, ultimately leading to increased costs and wasted developer time. The author concludes that while GitHub Actions might be suitable for straightforward tasks, its caching mechanism's unreliability makes it a poor choice for more complex projects, especially those involving static site generation. They ultimately opted to migrate to a self-hosted solution for improved control and predictability.

  The blog post "I'll think twice before using GitHub Actions again" by Nikola Ninković details a frustrating experience with GitHub Actions, ultimately leading the author to reconsider its use for future projects. Ninković begins by acknowledging the initial appeal of GitHub Actions – its tight integration with GitHub, purported ease of use, and the availability of a free tier. He then proceeds to describe how these initial perceived advantages ultimately transformed into significant drawbacks during his attempt to create a CI/CD pipeline for a static website.

  The core issue revolved around caching. While GitHub Actions offers caching mechanisms, Ninković found them to be unreliable and opaque. He explains how he attempted to cache dependencies for his Hugo-based website, anticipating this would significantly speed up build times. However, the cache frequently failed to hit, leading to repeated downloads of dependencies and negating the intended time savings. The author diligently tried various approaches to troubleshoot and rectify the caching issues, meticulously adjusting his workflow file and experimenting with different caching strategies suggested in the documentation and community forums. Despite these efforts, the caching behavior remained erratic and unpredictable, significantly hampering the efficiency of his CI/CD pipeline.

  Further compounding the problem was the lack of clear visibility into the caching process. Ninković highlights the difficulty in understanding why the cache was being invalidated or missed. The limited debugging tools and opaque nature of the caching system made it challenging to diagnose the root cause of the failures. This lack of transparency ultimately led to a considerable investment of time and effort in attempting to resolve an issue that ultimately proved intractable.

  Ninković contrasts his experience with GitHub Actions to his prior usage of Netlify, a platform specifically designed for hosting and deploying static websites. He emphasizes the seamless and intuitive deployment process offered by Netlify, highlighting its inherent understanding of website deployment workflows and its reliable caching mechanisms. This comparison serves to underscore the perceived shortcomings of GitHub Actions, particularly its complexity and unreliability when applied to specific use cases like static website deployment.

  Finally, Ninković concludes by expressing his disillusionment with GitHub Actions. He acknowledges that the platform may be suitable for other types of projects, but asserts that its current implementation presents significant challenges for static website deployment. He states his intention to explore alternative CI/CD solutions in the future, prioritizing platforms that offer greater reliability, transparency, and ease of use when it comes to caching and deployment workflows for his static websites. The overall tone of the post reflects a sentiment of frustration stemming from the significant time and effort invested in attempting to overcome the limitations encountered with GitHub Actions.

  • GitHub Actions
  • CI/CD
  • Continuous Integration
  • Continuous Deployment
  • DevOps
  • Workflow Automation
  • Build Automation
  • testing
  • Software Development
  • Blog Post
  • Opinion
  • critique
  • Alternatives to GitHub Actions

  Summary of Comments ( 148 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42764762

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's sentiment about GitHub Actions' complexity and unreliability. Many shared similar experiences with flaky builds, obscure error messages, and difficulty debugging. Several commenters suggested exploring alternatives like GitLab CI, Drone CI, or self-hosted runners for more control and predictability. Some pointed out the benefits of GitHub Actions, such as its tight integration with GitHub and the availability of pre-built actions, but acknowledged the frustrations raised in the article. The discussion also touched upon the trade-offs between convenience and control when choosing a CI/CD solution, with some arguing that the ease of use initially offered by GitHub Actions can be overshadowed by the difficulties encountered as projects grow more complex. A few users offered specific troubleshooting tips or workarounds for common issues, highlighting the community-driven nature of problem-solving around GitHub Actions.

  The Hacker News post "I'll think twice before using GitHub Actions again" (linking to an article criticizing GitHub Actions) generated a significant discussion with a variety of viewpoints.

  Several commenters agreed with the author's sentiments, sharing their own frustrating experiences with GitHub Actions. These included complaints about opaque pricing, unexpected cost overruns (especially with third-party actions), difficulty debugging complex workflows, and a lack of adequate support from GitHub. One commenter described being "nickeled and dimed" by hidden costs. Another highlighted the frustration of debugging issues across multiple nested actions, with limited visibility into the execution environment. The unpredictable nature of build times and the resulting variability in costs were also mentioned as major downsides.

  Some suggested alternatives to GitHub Actions, citing platforms like GitLab CI, Jenkins, and Drone CI as offering more transparency, control, and better value. Specifically, self-hosting runners was brought up as a way to gain more control and potentially reduce costs.

  However, other commenters defended GitHub Actions, emphasizing its convenience and tight integration with the GitHub ecosystem. They argued that for smaller projects or individual developers, the benefits of simplicity and ease of use outweigh the potential cost concerns. Several pointed out that the free tier is often sufficient for many use cases, and that with careful planning and monitoring, costs can be managed effectively. One commenter suggested that the author's issues stemmed from a lack of familiarity with the platform rather than inherent flaws in GitHub Actions itself. They emphasized the importance of understanding the pricing structure and utilizing best practices to optimize workflows.

  The discussion also touched upon the broader trend of vendor lock-in within the developer ecosystem. Some expressed concern about relying too heavily on GitHub's integrated toolset, making it difficult to migrate to other platforms in the future.

  Finally, some commenters offered practical advice for mitigating the issues raised in the original article, such as using self-hosted runners for computationally intensive tasks, carefully reviewing the pricing of third-party actions, and leveraging GitHub Actions' built-in caching mechanisms to optimize performance and reduce costs. One commenter even shared a link to a community-maintained list of free and open-source GitHub Actions.

  In summary, the comments section reveals a mixed reception to GitHub Actions. While some users have had negative experiences related to cost, complexity, and debugging, others find it a convenient and valuable tool. The discussion highlights the importance of carefully considering project requirements, understanding the pricing model, and exploring alternative CI/CD solutions before committing to a specific platform.