Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
GitLab CI vs wercker: What are the differences?
Developers describe GitLab CI as "GitLab integrated CI to test, build and deploy your code". 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. On the other hand, wercker is detailed as "Build, test, and deploy container-native applications". Wercker is a CI/CD developer automation platform designed for Microservices & Container Architecture.
GitLab CI and wercker belong to "Continuous Integration" category of the tech stack.
"Robust CI with awesome Docker support" is the top reason why over 16 developers like GitLab CI, while over 34 developers mention "Automatic Deployments" as the leading cause for choosing wercker.
WebbyLab, Infoxchange, and Dial Once are some of the popular companies that use GitLab CI, whereas wercker is used by FashionUnited, Hazeorid, and DataHero. GitLab CI has a broader approval, being mentioned in 210 company stacks & 93 developers stacks; compared to wercker, which is listed in 40 company stacks and 23 developer stacks.
We are a mid-size startup running Scala apps. Moving from Jenkins/EC2 to Spinnaker/EKS and looking for a tool to cover our CI/CD needs. Our code lives on GitHub, artifacts in nexus, images in ECR.
Drone is out, GitHub actions are being considered along with Circle CI and GitLab CI.
We primarily need:
- Fast SBT builds (caching)
- Low maintenance overhead (ideally serverless)
- Everything as code
- Ease of use
I think I've tried most of the CI tools out there at some point. It took me a while to get around to Buildkite because at first I didn't see much point given it seemed like you had to run the agent yourself. Eventually it dawned on me why this approach was more ingenious than I realised:
Running my app in a production (or production-like) environment was already a solved problem, because everything was already in some form of "everything as code". Having a test environment where the only difference was adding the Buildkite agent was a trivial addition.
It means that dev/test/prod parity is simple to achieve and maintain. It's also proven to be much easier to support than trying to deal with the problems that come with trying to force an app to fit into the nuances and constraints that are imposed by the containers/runtime of a CI service. When you completely control all of the environment the tests are running in you define those constraints too. It's been a great balance between a managed service and the flexibility of running it yourself.
And while none of my needs have hit the scale of Shopify (I saw one of their engineers speak about it at a conference once, I can't find the video now though 😞) it's good to know I can scale out my worker nodes to hundreds of thousands of workers to reduce the time it takes for my tests to run.
I would recommend you to consider the JFrog Platform that includes JFrog Pipelines - it will allow you to manage the full artifact life cycle for your sbt, docker and other technologies, and automate all of your CI and CD using cloud native declarative yaml pipelines. Will integrate smoothly with all your other toolset.
more configurable to setup ci/cd: * It can provide caching when build sbt, just add this section to yml file * Easy to use, many documentation
Weakness: * Need use gitlab as repository to bring more powerful configuration
We migrated all our CI/CD pipelines to CircleCI back in 2017 and are particularly happy about it since!
Our top loved feature is unlimited parallelism. We can run as many builds concurrently as we want.
We also use orbs, pipeline parameters, reusable commands, build cache, test insights.
For some of the heavier repos, we use a larger resource class and mount RAMdisk to a file system to speed up builds.
Buddy is one of the most easy-to-use tools for CI I ever met. When I needed to set up the pipeline I was really impressed with how easy it is to create it with Buddy with only a few moments. It's literally like: 1. Add repo 2. Click - Click - Click 3. You're done and your app is on prod :D The top feature that I've found is a simple integration with different notification channels - not only Slack (which is the one by default), but Telegram and Discord. The support is also neat - guys respond pretty quickly on even a small issue.
Pros of GitLab CI
- Robust CI with awesome Docker support22
- Simple configuration13
- All in one solution9
- Source Control and CI in one place7
- Integrated with VCS on commit5
- Free and open source5
- Easy to configure own build server i.e. GitLab-Runner5
- Hosted internally2
- Built-in Docker Registry1
- Built-in support of Review Apps1
- Pipeline could be started manually1
- Enable or disable pipeline by using env variables1
- Gitlab templates could be shared across logical group1
- Easy to setup the dedicated runner to particular job1
- Built-in support of Kubernetes1
Pros of wercker
- Automatic Deployments35
- Free33
- Easy config via yaml25
- Awesome UI23
- Github integration23
- Continuous Deployment22
- Supports both Github and Bitbucket16
- Easy to setup14
- Reliable12
- Bitbucket Integration11
- Community-driven components (boxes and steps)4
- Fast builds4
- Easy to get started4
- Docker based4
- Easy UI3
- Flexible configuration via YAML3
- Multi-target deploys2
- Trigger by branch name1
- Great UI, free and an active Slack channel :)1
- Docker support1
- Multiple configurable build steps1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of GitLab CI
- Works best with GitLab repositories2