Codeship vs Travis CI: What are the differences?
Developers describe Codeship as "A Continuous Integration Platform in the cloud". Codeship runs your automated tests and configured deployment when you push to your repository. It takes care of managing and scaling the infrastructure so that you are able to test and release more frequently and get faster feedback for building the product your users need. On the other hand, Travis CI is detailed as "A hosted continuous integration service for open source and private projects". 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.
Codeship and Travis CI can be categorized as "Continuous Integration" tools.
Some of the features offered by Codeship are:
- Run you automated tests | Easily set up Codeship with Github or Bitbucket and trigger your automated tests with a simple push to your repository.
- 100 builds & 5 private projects free per month.
- Free for OSS.
On the other hand, Travis CI provides the following key features:
- Easy Setup- Getting started with Travis CI is as easy as enabling a project, adding basic build instructions to your project and committing code.
- Supports Your Platform- Lots of databases and services are pre-installed and can simply be enabled in your build configuration, we'll launch them for you automatically. MySQL, PostgreSQL, ElasticSearch, Redis, Riak, RabbitMQ, Memcached are available by default.
- Deploy With Confidence- Deploying to production after a successful build is as easy as setting up a bit of configuration, and we'll deploy your code to Heroku, Engine Yard Cloud, Nodejitsu, cloudControl, OpenShift, and CloudFoundry.
"Simple deployments", "Easy setup" and "Github integration" are the key factors why developers consider Codeship; whereas "Github integration", "Free for open source" and "Easy to get started" are the primary reasons why Travis CI is favored.
Lyft, Heroku, and Rainist are some of the popular companies that use Travis CI, whereas Codeship is used by Product Hunt, TravelPerk, and Swat.io. Travis CI has a broader approval, being mentioned in 670 company stacks & 624 developers stacks; compared to Codeship, which is listed in 277 company stacks and 82 developer stacks.
What is Codeship?
What is Travis CI?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
We are using React Native in #SmartHome to share the business logic between Android and iOS team and approach users with a unique brand experience. The drawback is that we require lots of native Android SDK and Objective-C modules, so a good part of the invested time is there. The gain for a app that relies less on native communication, sensors and OS tools should be even higher.
We use a microservices structure on top of Zeit's @now that read from firebase. We use JWT auth to authenticate requests among services and from users, following GitHub philosophy of using the same infrastructure than its API consumers. Firebase is used mainly as a key-value store between services and as a backup database for users. We also use its authentication mechanisms.
You can be super locked-in if you also rely on it's analytics, but we use Amplitude for that, which offers us great insights. Intercom for communications with end-user and Mailjet for marketing.
When it comes to continuous Integration services, the choice is hard. There are several solutions available and it looks like the dev scene is very split. We've read and reviewed several solutions and we ended up making the choice between Codeship and Semaphore . Although Semaphore is used by slightly more developers, we've experienced a faster and easy flow using Codeship. Both do integrate Slack and GitHub very well, so this is not a point to set them apart. Both have a complex pricing system that is not that easy to calculate and predict. However, out in the wild, we found Codeship to have a better price point at heavy use.
I initially chose CircleCI for a personal project because I was not satisified with using Travis CI in the past. When it came time to develop my CI/CD config on Circle, I was pleasantly surprised with the fantastic documentation, invaluable collection of example configs and helpful support provided. The free tier they provide is quite robust for most small projects and the platform is updated frequently with nice features.
Areas where CircleCI could improve:
- the UI is a bit slow (you can feel the local machine straining to load all the code) and it is not as intuitive as it could be
- many UI elements receive updates and/or changes that are not always reflected in the current docs
I recommend using Travis CI and/or Appveyor in all projects.
Projects using these tools have given me confidence to know that I don't cause any breaking changes. Travis CI and Appveyor have functionality to test components of a project across multiple installation projects to ensure that modifications don't break a project. These tools integrate easily with GitHub and are useful in open source projects that must review contributions from many different people.
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.
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 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".
I use Google Cloud Build because it's my first foray into the CICD world(loving it so far), and I wanted to work with something GCP native to avoid giving permissions to other SaaS tools like CircleCI and Travis CI.
I really like it because it's free for the first 120 minutes, and it's one of the few CICD tools that enterprises are open to using since it's contained within GCP.
One of the unique things is that it has the Kaniko cache, which speeds up builds by creating intermediate layers within the docker image vs. pushing the full thing from the start. Helpful when you're installing just a few additional dependencies.
Feel free to checkout an example: Cloudbuild Example
Working for a web agency, I have access to many premium services for all parts of the development process which leads to two things when it comes to working on my personal projects at home.
1: I am more fussy about the quality of tools and services that I use than I was before I went from just messing around with programming to having a developer job.
2: I really don't want to pay a single fee or any kind of subscription to services as after using them all day at work I find it hard to justify personally paying a premium to use them for a bit of time at home after work.
However with Code ship neither of these things caused any issues as I found it to be very high quality and free.
On the subject of it being free, I know there are other CI solutions that are free however if you wish to use it with a private repository then unless you already have private Github repos then the fact that Code Ship integrates with Bitbucket can be extremely convenient as it means you can set up your personal projects with free private repository and a free CI / testing solution for absolutely free.
Overall Codeship has really impressed me in every way from its pricing to its clean and simple UI and its ease of use.
Setting up continuous integration is complex and time consuming. I've used Codeship for 1 year now and I would never go back to previous systems such as self hosted Jenkins for any kind of web applications. The ability to change developer access on a per repository basis with the click of a button is very helpful and integration with all our services such as Github and Heroku make testing and deployment happen in the background so we can concentrate on our application and not worry about what state the live code is in. We also find the Slack integration (and flowdock before that) to be a great way to share the current code status with the whole team without getting spammed with emails on each commit and build state change while testing prototype branches or working on pull-requests.
Like most developers I'd love it if my deployment processes were always the same for every project so I never had to think about deployment. However, that's probably never going to happen unless we stop having clients. Codeship allows me to organize all of my deployments into one place and set them up once so that I don't have to remember the process for every nuance of every client.
Whether it's deploying a Drupal or Wordpress site to a private server, a Meteor.js app to Modulus, or just about anything else Codeship gives me the flexibility of writing my own shell scripts for custom jobs (private server) but also one-click solutions for common problems (deployment to Modulus).
Highly recommend them!
It's not easy to differentiate a CI/CD service because integrations matter so much more than the service itself. Didn't even need to read any docs, it just works exactly as you expect it to.
- Pipelines for running tests in parallel (freemium).
- Easiest setup of any CI service I've tried.
- Mandatory build status image service.
- Test runners are alright, but not that powerful. Py.test can run tests in parallel on its own, but enabling that feature doesn't seem to speed up Codeship runs.
- Doesn't detect tox environments, so you have to specify one environment per pipeline manually.
I spent half a day grepping CodeShip and now I have a sweet deployment process for WP sites. After a month of wrestling with Bamboo I decided to give CodeShip a try thanks to an article by CodeShip's Roman Kuba about deploying WP sites
I am now killin' WP development with my CodeShip + WPEngine setup. This is also making WP development/deployment fun for the first time. CodeShip f*cking rocks.
In the past we used to run Jenkins. The build server always had weird issues and was a pain to maintain. Travis is a great solution for CI. Their Debug build features makes it trivial to figure out why your build broke. The integration with Github is also very slick. One thing they could improve is the documentation on the .travis.yaml format. All in all, great company and very responsive supports. Over here at getstream.io we're a fan. Keep up the good work guys!
Travis CI is our pillar for automated deployment, pull request testing, auto-merging (for non-mission-critical projects), and build testing per commit / release.
It is highly configurable, super cheap, and extremely robust (supports every language and configuration we've thrown at it).
While we usually run tests before commits, Travis goes further and tests with different Python versions and different database backends. It works great, and, best of all, it is free for open source projects.
We use this as a CI tool when working on our API and related tools. The setup is relatively painless and it hooks directly into our Github repo's to provide reports and feedback.
Travis CI builds and tests every commit. It's also used to deploy Buildtime Trend as a Service to Heroku and the Buildtime Trend Python library to the PyPi repository.
Travis CI is critical for Linux and macOS CI tests for the Powershell module. Travis runs the same tests we run in AppVeyor in parallel.
Runs a full test suite whenever we push changes to master and if everything is good, automatically deploys our changes to production.
To ensure that what works locally will also work for someone else. Also used to send code coverage to codeintel