Alternatives to Bamboo logo

Alternatives to Bamboo

Jenkins, Eucalyptus, Travis CI, CircleCI, and GitHub Actions are the most popular alternatives and competitors to Bamboo.
488
484
+ 1
17

What is Bamboo and what are its top alternatives?

Focus on coding and count on Bamboo as your CI and build server! Create multi-stage build plans, set up triggers to start builds upon commits, and assign agents to your critical builds and deployments.
Bamboo is a tool in the Continuous Integration category of a tech stack.

Top Alternatives to Bamboo

  • Jenkins
    Jenkins

    In a nutshell Jenkins CI is the leading open-source continuous integration server. Built with Java, it provides over 300 plugins to support building and testing virtually any project. ...

  • Eucalyptus
    Eucalyptus

    Eucalyptus is open source software for building private, AWS-compatible IT, QA, and developer clouds. It makes it easy to deliver cloud computing, just like AWS, from within your data center. ...

  • Travis CI
    Travis CI

    Free for open source projects, our CI environment provides multiple runtimes (e.g. Node.js or PHP versions), data stores and so on. Because of this, hosting your project on travis-ci.com means you can effortlessly test your library or applications against multiple runtimes and data stores without even having all of them installed locally. ...

  • CircleCI
    CircleCI

    Continuous integration and delivery platform helps software teams rapidly release code with confidence by automating the build, test, and deploy process. Offers a modern software development platform that lets teams ramp. ...

  • GitHub Actions
    GitHub Actions

    It makes it easy to automate all your software workflows, now with world-class CI/CD. Build, test, and deploy your code right from GitHub. Make code reviews, branch management, and issue triaging work the way you want. ...

  • GitLab CI
    GitLab CI

    GitLab offers a continuous integration service. If you add a .gitlab-ci.yml file to the root directory of your repository, and configure your GitLab project to use a Runner, then each merge request or push triggers your CI pipeline. ...

  • Azure Pipelines
    Azure Pipelines

    Fast builds with parallel jobs and test execution. Use container jobs to create consistent and reliable builds with the exact tools you need. Create new containers with ease and push them to any registry. ...

  • TeamCity
    TeamCity

    TeamCity is a user-friendly continuous integration (CI) server for professional developers, build engineers, and DevOps. It is trivial to setup and absolutely free for small teams and open source projects. ...

Bamboo alternatives & related posts

Jenkins logo

Jenkins

49.5K
41.7K
2.2K
An extendable open source continuous integration server
49.5K
41.7K
+ 1
2.2K
PROS OF JENKINS
  • 521
    Hosted internally
  • 464
    Free open source
  • 314
    Great to build, deploy or launch anything async
  • 243
    Tons of integrations
  • 210
    Rich set of plugins with good documentation
  • 110
    Has support for build pipelines
  • 72
    Open source and tons of integrations
  • 65
    Easy setup
  • 62
    It is open-source
  • 54
    Workflow plugin
  • 11
    Configuration as code
  • 10
    Very powerful tool
  • 9
    Continuous Integration
  • 9
    Many Plugins
  • 8
    Git and Maven integration is better
  • 8
    Great flexibility
  • 7
    100% free and open source
  • 6
    Slack Integration (plugin)
  • 6
    Github integration
  • 5
    Easy customisation
  • 5
    Self-hosted GitLab Integration (plugin)
  • 4
    Docker support
  • 4
    Pipeline API
  • 3
    Platform idnependency
  • 3
    Excellent docker integration
  • 3
    Fast builds
  • 3
    Hosted Externally
  • 2
    Customizable
  • 2
    AWS Integration
  • 2
    It's Everywhere
  • 2
    JOBDSL
  • 2
    Can be run as a Docker container
  • 2
    It`w worked
  • 1
    Easily extendable with seamless integration
  • 1
    Build PR Branch Only
  • 1
    NodeJS Support
  • 1
    PHP Support
  • 1
    Ruby/Rails Support
  • 1
    Universal controller
  • 1
    Loose Coupling
CONS OF JENKINS
  • 12
    Workarounds needed for basic requirements
  • 9
    Groovy with cumbersome syntax
  • 7
    Plugins compatibility issues
  • 6
    Lack of support
  • 6
    Limited abilities with declarative pipelines
  • 4
    No YAML syntax
  • 3
    Too tied to plugins versions

related Jenkins posts

Tymoteusz Paul
Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 5.3M views

Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.

See more
Thierry Schellenbach

Releasing new versions of our services is done by Travis CI. Travis first runs our test suite. Once it passes, it publishes a new release binary to GitHub.

Common tasks such as installing dependencies for the Go project, or building a binary are automated using plain old Makefiles. (We know, crazy old school, right?) Our binaries are compressed using UPX.

Travis has come a long way over the past years. I used to prefer Jenkins in some cases since it was easier to debug broken builds. With the addition of the aptly named “debug build” button, Travis is now the clear winner. It’s easy to use and free for open source, with no need to maintain anything.

#ContinuousIntegration #CodeCollaborationVersionControl

See more
Eucalyptus logo

Eucalyptus

18
76
0
Open source AWS compatible private cloud
18
76
+ 1
0
PROS OF EUCALYPTUS
    Be the first to leave a pro
    CONS OF EUCALYPTUS
      Be the first to leave a con

      related Eucalyptus posts

      Travis CI logo

      Travis CI

      11.8K
      6.1K
      1.8K
      A hosted continuous integration service for open source and private projects
      11.8K
      6.1K
      + 1
      1.8K
      PROS OF TRAVIS CI
      • 506
        Github integration
      • 388
        Free for open source
      • 272
        Easy to get started
      • 191
        Nice interface
      • 163
        Automatic deployment
      • 72
        Tutorials for each programming language
      • 40
        Friendly folks
      • 29
        Support for multiple ruby versions
      • 28
        Osx support
      • 24
        Easy handling of secret keys
      • 6
        Fast builds
      • 4
        Support for students
      • 3
        The best tool for Open Source CI
      • 3
        Hosted
      • 3
        Build Matrices
      • 2
        Github Pull Request build
      • 2
        Straightforward Github/Coveralls integration
      • 2
        Easy of Usage
      • 2
        Integrates with everything
      • 1
        Caching resolved artifacts
      • 1
        Docker support
      • 1
        Great Documentation
      • 1
        Build matrix
      • 1
        No-brainer for CI
      • 1
        Debug build workflow
      • 1
        Ubuntu trusty is not supported
      • 1
        Free for students
      • 1
        Configuration saved with project repository
      • 1
        Multi-threaded run
      • 1
        Hipchat Integration
      • 0
        Perfect
      CONS OF TRAVIS CI
      • 8
        Can't be hosted insternally
      • 3
        Feature lacking
      • 3
        Unstable
      • 2
        Incomplete documentation for all platforms

      related Travis CI posts

      Thierry Schellenbach

      Releasing new versions of our services is done by Travis CI. Travis first runs our test suite. Once it passes, it publishes a new release binary to GitHub.

      Common tasks such as installing dependencies for the Go project, or building a binary are automated using plain old Makefiles. (We know, crazy old school, right?) Our binaries are compressed using UPX.

      Travis has come a long way over the past years. I used to prefer Jenkins in some cases since it was easier to debug broken builds. With the addition of the aptly named “debug build” button, Travis is now the clear winner. It’s easy to use and free for open source, with no need to maintain anything.

      #ContinuousIntegration #CodeCollaborationVersionControl

      See more
      Tim Abbott
      Shared insights
      on
      Travis CITravis CICircleCICircleCI
      at

      We actually started out on Travis CI, but we've migrated our main builds to CircleCI, and it's been a huge improvement.

      The reason it's been a huge improvement is that Travis CI has a fundamentally bad design for their images, where they start with a standard base Linux image containing tons of packages (several versions of postgres, every programming language environment, etc). This is potentially nice for the "get builds for a small project running quickly" use case, but it's a total disaster for a larger project that needs a decent number of dependencies and cares about the performance and reliability of their build.

      This issue is exacerbated by their networking infrastructure being unreliable; we usually saw over 1% of builds failing due to transient networking errors in Travis CI, even after we added retries to the most frequently failing operations like apt update or pip install. And they never install Ubuntu's point release updates to their images. So doing an apt update, apt install, or especially apt upgrade would take forever. We ended up writing code to actually uninstall many of their base packages and pin the versions of hundreds of others to get a semi-fast, semi-reliable build. It was infuriating.

      The CircleCI v2.0 system has the right design for a CI system: we can customize the base image to start with any expensive-to-install packages we need for our build, and we can update that image if and when we want to. The end result is that when migrating, we were able to delete all the hacky optimizations mentioned above, while still ending up with a 50% faster build latency. And we've also had 5-10x fewer issues with networking-related flakes, which means one doesn't have to constantly check whether a build failure is actually due to an issue with the code under test or "just another networking flake".

      See more
      CircleCI logo

      CircleCI

      10.1K
      6.1K
      962
      Automate your development process quickly, safely, and at scale
      10.1K
      6.1K
      + 1
      962
      PROS OF CIRCLECI
      • 224
        Github integration
      • 176
        Easy setup
      • 152
        Fast builds
      • 94
        Competitively priced
      • 74
        Slack integration
      • 54
        Docker support
      • 44
        Awesome UI
      • 33
        Great customer support
      • 18
        Ios support
      • 14
        Hipchat integration
      • 13
        SSH debug access
      • 11
        Free for Open Source
      • 5
        Bitbucket integration
      • 5
        Mobile support
      • 4
        Nodejs support
      • 4
        AWS CodeDeploy integration
      • 3
        Great support
      • 3
        Free for Github private repo
      • 3
        YAML configuration
      • 2
        Clojurescript
      • 2
        OSX support
      • 2
        Continuous Deployment
      • 2
        Simple, clean UI
      • 2
        Clojure
      • 1
        Unstable
      • 1
        Favorite
      • 1
        Helpful documentation
      • 1
        Autoscaling
      • 1
        Extremely configurable
      • 1
        Works
      • 1
        Android support
      • 1
        Fair pricing
      • 1
        All inclusive testing
      • 1
        Japanese in rspec comment appears OK
      • 1
        Build PR Branch Only
      • 1
        So circular
      • 1
        Easy setup, easy to understand, fast and reliable
      • 1
        Parallel builds for slow test suites
      • 1
        Easy setup. 2.0 is fast!
      • 1
        Parallelism
      • 1
        Easy to deploy to private servers
      • 1
        Really easy to use
      • 0
        Stable
      CONS OF CIRCLECI
      • 12
        Unstable
      • 6
        Scammy pricing structure
      • 0
        Aggressive Github permissions

      related CircleCI posts

      Tymoteusz Paul
      Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 5.3M views

      Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

      It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

      I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

      We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

      If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

      The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

      Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.

      See more
      Tim Abbott
      Shared insights
      on
      Travis CITravis CICircleCICircleCI
      at

      We actually started out on Travis CI, but we've migrated our main builds to CircleCI, and it's been a huge improvement.

      The reason it's been a huge improvement is that Travis CI has a fundamentally bad design for their images, where they start with a standard base Linux image containing tons of packages (several versions of postgres, every programming language environment, etc). This is potentially nice for the "get builds for a small project running quickly" use case, but it's a total disaster for a larger project that needs a decent number of dependencies and cares about the performance and reliability of their build.

      This issue is exacerbated by their networking infrastructure being unreliable; we usually saw over 1% of builds failing due to transient networking errors in Travis CI, even after we added retries to the most frequently failing operations like apt update or pip install. And they never install Ubuntu's point release updates to their images. So doing an apt update, apt install, or especially apt upgrade would take forever. We ended up writing code to actually uninstall many of their base packages and pin the versions of hundreds of others to get a semi-fast, semi-reliable build. It was infuriating.

      The CircleCI v2.0 system has the right design for a CI system: we can customize the base image to start with any expensive-to-install packages we need for our build, and we can update that image if and when we want to. The end result is that when migrating, we were able to delete all the hacky optimizations mentioned above, while still ending up with a 50% faster build latency. And we've also had 5-10x fewer issues with networking-related flakes, which means one doesn't have to constantly check whether a build failure is actually due to an issue with the code under test or "just another networking flake".

      See more
      GitHub Actions logo

      GitHub Actions

      5.1K
      634
      20
      Automate your workflow from idea to production
      5.1K
      634
      + 1
      20
      PROS OF GITHUB ACTIONS
      • 4
        Integration with GitHub
      • 4
        Free
      • 3
        Easy to duplicate a workflow
      • 2
        Ready actions in Marketplace
      • 2
        Docker Support
      • 2
        Read actions in Marketplace
      • 1
        Fast
      • 1
        Active Development Roadmap
      • 1
        Configs stored in .github
      CONS OF GITHUB ACTIONS
      • 5
        Lacking [skip ci]
      • 4
        Lacking allow failure
      • 3
        Lacking job specific badges
      • 2
        No ssh login to servers
      • 1
        No Deployment Projects
      • 1
        No manual launch

      related GitHub Actions posts

      Somnath Mahale
      Engineering Leader at Altimetrik Corp. · | 8 upvotes · 131K views

      I am in the process of evaluating CircleCI, Drone.io, and Github Actions to cover my #CI/ CD needs. I would appreciate your advice on comparative study w.r.t. attributes like language-Inclusive support, code-base integration, performance, cost, maintenance, support, ease of use, ability to deal with big projects, etc. based on actual industry experience.

      Thanks in advance!

      See more
      Omkar Kulkarni
      DevOps Engineer at LTI · | 3 upvotes · 46.3K views
      Shared insights
      on
      GitLabGitLabGitHub ActionsGitHub Actions

      Hello Everyone, Can some please help me to understand the difference between GitHub Actions And GitLab I have been trying to understand them, but still did not get how exactly they are different.

      See more
      GitLab CI logo

      GitLab CI

      2.1K
      1.4K
      73
      GitLab integrated CI to test, build and deploy your code
      2.1K
      1.4K
      + 1
      73
      PROS OF GITLAB CI
      • 22
        Robust CI with awesome Docker support
      • 12
        Simple configuration
      • 8
        All in one solution
      • 7
        Source Control and CI in one place
      • 5
        Easy to configure own build server i.e. GitLab-Runner
      • 5
        Integrated with VCS on commit
      • 5
        Free and open source
      • 2
        Hosted internally
      • 1
        Pipeline could be started manually
      • 1
        Built-in support of Review Apps
      • 1
        Built-in Docker Registry
      • 1
        Built-in support of Kubernetes
      • 1
        Enable or disable pipeline by using env variables
      • 1
        Gitlab templates could be shared across logical group
      • 1
        Easy to setup the dedicated runner to particular job
      CONS OF GITLAB CI
      • 2
        Works best with GitLab repositories

      related GitLab CI posts

      Joshua Dean Küpper
      CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 20 upvotes · 401.2K views

      We use GitLab CI because of the great native integration as a part of the GitLab framework and the linting-capabilities it offers. The visualization of complex pipelines and the embedding within the project overview made Gitlab CI even more convenient. We use it for all projects, all deployments and as a part of GitLab Pages.

      While we initially used the Shell-executor, we quickly switched to the Docker-executor and use it exclusively now.

      We formerly used Jenkins but preferred to handle everything within GitLab . Aside from the unification of our infrastructure another motivation was the "configuration-in-file"-approach, that Gitlab CI offered, while Jenkins support of this concept was very limited and users had to resort to using the webinterface. Since the file is included within the repository, it is also version controlled, which was a huge plus for us.

      See more
      Sebastian Dellwig
      Tech Lead at Porsche Digital GmbH · | 6 upvotes · 161K views
      Shared insights
      on
      GitLab CIGitLab CICircleCICircleCICodeshipCodeship

      We are using GitLab CI and were very happy with it. The integration of all tools like CI/CD, tickets, etc makes it very easy to stay on top of things. But be aware, Gitlab currently does not have iOS build support. So if you want to exchange that for CircleCI / Codeship to have to invest some effort. We are using a managed Mac OS device and installed the Gitlab runner there, to have iOS builds.

      See more
      Azure Pipelines logo

      Azure Pipelines

      1.2K
      351
      14
      Continuously build, test, and deploy to any platform and cloud
      1.2K
      351
      + 1
      14
      PROS OF AZURE PIPELINES
      • 4
        Easy to get started
      • 3
        Unlimited CI/CD minutes
      • 3
        Built by Microsoft
      • 2
        Yaml support
      • 2
        Docker support
      CONS OF AZURE PIPELINES
        Be the first to leave a con

        related Azure Pipelines posts

        Oliver Burn

        We recently added new APIs to Jira to associate information about Builds and Deployments to Jira issues.

        The new APIs were developed using a spec-first API approach for speed and sanity. The details of this approach are described in this blog post, and we relied on using Swagger and associated tools like Swagger UI.

        A new service was created for managing the data. It provides a REST API for external use, and an internal API based on GraphQL. The service is built using Kotlin for increased developer productivity and happiness, and the Spring-Boot framework. PostgreSQL was chosen for the persistence layer, as we have non-trivial requirements that cannot be easily implemented on top of a key-value store.

        The front-end has been built using React and querying the back-end service using an internal GraphQL API. We have plans of providing a public GraphQL API in the future.

        New Jira Integrations: Bitbucket CircleCI AWS CodePipeline Octopus Deploy jFrog Azure Pipelines

        See more

        We are currently using Azure Pipelines for continous integration. Our applications are developed witn .NET framework. But when we look at the online Jenkins is the most widely used tool for continous integration. Can you please give me the advice which one is best to use for my case Azure pipeline or jenkins.

        See more
        TeamCity logo

        TeamCity

        1.1K
        997
        307
        TeamCity is an ultimate Continuous Integration tool for professionals
        1.1K
        997
        + 1
        307
        PROS OF TEAMCITY
        • 60
          Easy to configure
        • 37
          Reliable and high-quality
        • 31
          User friendly
        • 31
          Github integration
        • 31
          On premise
        • 18
          Great UI
        • 16
          Smart
        • 12
          Can run jobs in parallel
        • 12
          Free for open source
        • 8
          Crossplatform
        • 4
          Great support by jetbrains
        • 4
          Chain dependencies
        • 4
          REST API
        • 4
          Fully-functional out of the box
        • 4
          Projects hierarchy
        • 3
          Build templates
        • 3
          Per-project permissions
        • 3
          Personal notifications
        • 3
          Free for small teams
        • 3
          100+ plugins
        • 2
          Ide plugins
        • 2
          GitLab integration
        • 2
          Build progress messages promoting from running process
        • 2
          Artifact dependencies
        • 2
          Smart build failure analysis and tracking
        • 2
          Upload build artifacts
        • 1
          Built-in artifacts repository
        • 1
          Powerful build chains / pipelines
        • 1
          TeamCity Professional is FREE
        • 1
          Repository-stored, full settings dsl with ide support
        • 0
          Hosted internally
        • 0
          Official reliable support
        • 0
          High-Availability
        CONS OF TEAMCITY
        • 2
          User friendly
        • 1
          Proprietary
        • 1
          High costs for more than three build agents
        • 1
          User-friendly

        related TeamCity posts

        Tymoteusz Paul
        Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 5.3M views

        Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

        It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

        I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

        We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

        If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

        The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

        Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.

        See more
        Sarah Elson
        Product Growth at LambdaTest · | 4 upvotes · 389.7K views

        @producthunt LambdaTest Selenium JavaScript Java Python PHP Cucumber TeamCity CircleCI With this new release of LambdaTest automation, you can run tests across an Online Selenium Grid of 2000+ browsers and OS combinations to perform cross browser testing. This saves you from the pain of maintaining the infrastructure and also saves you the licensing costs for browsers and operating systems. #testing #Seleniumgrid #Selenium #testautomation #automation #webdriver #producthunt hunted

        See more