Alternatives to Travis CI logo

Alternatives to Travis CI

Jenkins, CircleCI, GitLab CI, GitLab, and Bamboo are the most popular alternatives and competitors to Travis CI.
10.2K
5.5K
+ 1
1.8K

What is Travis CI and what are its top alternatives?

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.
Travis CI is a tool in the Continuous Integration category of a tech stack.

Top Alternatives to Travis CI

  • 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. ...

  • 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. ...

  • 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. ...

  • GitLab

    GitLab

    GitLab offers git repository management, code reviews, issue tracking, activity feeds and wikis. Enterprises install GitLab on-premise and connect it with LDAP and Active Directory servers for secure authentication and authorization. A single GitLab server can handle more than 25,000 users but it is also possible to create a high availability setup with multiple active servers. ...

  • Bamboo

    Bamboo

    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. ...

  • 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. ...

  • Appveyor

    Appveyor

    AppVeyor aims to give powerful Continuous Integration and Deployment tools to every .NET developer without the hassle of setting up and maintaining their own build server. ...

  • Codeship

    Codeship

    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. ...

Travis CI alternatives & related posts

Jenkins logo

Jenkins

42.3K
34.9K
2.2K
An extendable open source continuous integration server
42.3K
34.9K
+ 1
2.2K
PROS OF JENKINS
  • 522
    Hosted internally
  • 465
    Free open source
  • 315
    Great to build, deploy or launch anything async
  • 243
    Tons of integrations
  • 210
    Rich set of plugins with good documentation
  • 109
    Has support for build pipelines
  • 72
    Open source and tons of integrations
  • 63
    Easy setup
  • 61
    It is open-source
  • 54
    Workflow plugin
  • 11
    Configuration as code
  • 10
    Very powerful tool
  • 9
    Many Plugins
  • 8
    Continuous Integration
  • 8
    Great flexibility
  • 8
    Git and Maven integration is better
  • 6
    Github integration
  • 6
    100% free and open source
  • 6
    Slack Integration (plugin)
  • 5
    Easy customisation
  • 5
    Self-hosted GitLab Integration (plugin)
  • 4
    Docker support
  • 3
    Excellent docker integration
  • 3
    Platform idnependency
  • 3
    Fast builds
  • 3
    Pipeline API
  • 2
    Customizable
  • 2
    Can be run as a Docker container
  • 2
    It`w worked
  • 2
    JOBDSL
  • 2
    Hosted Externally
  • 2
    It's Everywhere
  • 2
    AWS Integration
  • 1
    NodeJS Support
  • 1
    PHP Support
  • 1
    Ruby/Rails Support
  • 1
    Universal controller
  • 1
    Easily extendable with seamless integration
  • 1
    Build PR Branch Only
CONS OF JENKINS
  • 12
    Workarounds needed for basic requirements
  • 8
    Groovy with cumbersome syntax
  • 6
    Limited abilities with declarative pipelines
  • 6
    Plugins compatibility issues
  • 5
    Lack of support
  • 4
    No YAML syntax
  • 2
    Too tied to plugins versions

related Jenkins posts

Tymoteusz Paul
Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 4.6M 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
CircleCI logo

CircleCI

9.1K
5.3K
961
Automate your development process quickly, safely, and at scale
9.1K
5.3K
+ 1
961
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
  • 12
    SSH debug access
  • 11
    Free for Open Source
  • 5
    Mobile support
  • 5
    Bitbucket integration
  • 4
    Nodejs support
  • 4
    AWS CodeDeploy integration
  • 3
    YAML configuration
  • 3
    Free for Github private repo
  • 3
    Great support
  • 2
    Clojure
  • 2
    Simple, clean UI
  • 2
    Clojurescript
  • 2
    OSX support
  • 2
    Continuous Deployment
  • 1
    Android support
  • 1
    Autoscaling
  • 1
    Fair pricing
  • 1
    All inclusive testing
  • 1
    Helpful documentation
  • 1
    Japanese in rspec comment appears OK
  • 1
    Favorite
  • 1
    Build PR Branch Only
  • 1
    Really easy to use
  • 1
    Unstable
  • 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
    Extremely configurable
  • 1
    Easy to deploy to private servers
  • 1
    Works
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 · 4.6M 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 CI
CircleCI
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
GitLab CI logo

GitLab CI

1.9K
1.3K
71
GitLab integrated CI to test, build and deploy your code
1.9K
1.3K
+ 1
71
PROS OF GITLAB CI
  • 22
    Robust CI with awesome Docker support
  • 12
    Simple configuration
  • 8
    All in one solution
  • 6
    Source Control and CI in one place
  • 5
    Easy to configure own build server i.e. GitLab-Runner
  • 5
    Integrated with VCS on commit
  • 4
    Free and open source
  • 2
    Hosted internally
  • 1
    Pipeline could be started manually
  • 1
    Built-in support of Review Apps
  • 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
  • 1
    Built-in Docker Registry
  • 1
    Built-in support of Kubernetes
CONS OF GITLAB CI
  • 1
    Works best with GitLab repositories

related GitLab CI posts

Joshua Dean Küpper
CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 18 upvotes · 273.3K 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 · 134.5K views
Shared insights
on
GitLab CI
CircleCI
Codeship

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
GitLab logo

GitLab

41.3K
33.7K
2.3K
Open source self-hosted Git management software
41.3K
33.7K
+ 1
2.3K
PROS OF GITLAB
  • 491
    Self hosted
  • 420
    Free
  • 334
    Has community edition
  • 238
    Easy setup
  • 238
    Familiar interface
  • 131
    Includes many features, including ci
  • 107
    Nice UI
  • 81
    Good integration with gitlabci
  • 53
    Simple setup
  • 33
    Has an official mobile app
  • 31
    Free private repository
  • 26
    Continuous Integration
  • 19
    Open source, great ui (like github)
  • 15
    Slack Integration
  • 11
    Full CI flow
  • 9
    Free and unlimited private git repos
  • 8
    User, group, and project access management is simple
  • 7
    Built-in CI
  • 7
    All in one (Git, CI, Agile..)
  • 7
    Intuitive UI
  • 4
    Both public and private Repositories
  • 3
    Mattermost Chat client
  • 3
    Issue system
  • 3
    Integrated Docker Registry
  • 2
    I like the its runners and executors feature
  • 2
    Unlimited free repos & collaborators
  • 2
    One-click install through DigitalOcean
  • 2
    It's powerful source code management tool
  • 2
    CI
  • 2
    Free private repos
  • 2
    Excellent
  • 2
    Build/pipeline definition alongside code
  • 2
    On-premises
  • 2
    Security and Stable
  • 2
    So easy to use
  • 2
    Great for team collaboration
  • 2
    Low maintenance cost due omnibus-deployment
  • 2
    It's fully integrated
  • 1
    Many private repo
  • 1
    Published IP list for whitelisting (gl-infra#434)
  • 1
    Powerful Continuous Integration System
  • 1
    Kubernetes Integration
  • 1
    Kubernetes integration with GitLab CI
  • 1
    Review Apps feature
  • 1
    Built-in Docker Registry
  • 1
    The dashboard with deployed environments
  • 1
    Multilingual interface
  • 1
    Native CI
  • 1
    HipChat intergration
  • 1
    It includes everything I need, all packaged with docker
  • 1
    Powerful software planning and maintaining tools
  • 1
    Groups of groups
  • 1
    Dockerized
  • 1
    Beautiful
  • 1
    Wounderful
  • 1
    Opensource
  • 1
    Because is the best remote host for git repositories
  • 1
    Not Microsoft Owned
  • 1
    Full DevOps suite with Git
  • 0
    Supports Radius/Ldap & Browser Code Edits
CONS OF GITLAB
  • 26
    Slow ui performance
  • 6
    Introduce breaking bugs every release
  • 5
    Insecure (no published IP list for whitelisting)
  • 1
    Built-in Docker Registry
  • 0
    Review Apps feature

related GitLab posts

Tim Abbott
Shared insights
on
GitHub
GitLab
at

I have mixed feelings on GitHub as a product and our use of it for the Zulip open source project. On the one hand, I do feel that being on GitHub helps people discover Zulip, because we have enough stars (etc.) that we rank highly among projects on the platform. and there is a definite benefit for lowering barriers to contribution (which is important to us) that GitHub has such a dominant position in terms of what everyone has accounts with.

But even ignoring how one might feel about their new corporate owner (MicroSoft), in a lot of ways GitHub is a bad product for open source projects. Years after the "Dear GitHub" letter, there are still basic gaps in its issue tracker:

  • You can't give someone permission to label/categorize issues without full write access to a project (including ability to merge things to master, post releases, etc.).
  • You can't let anyone with a GitHub account self-assign issues to themselves.
  • Many more similar issues.

It's embarrassing, because I've talked to GitHub product managers at various open source events about these things for 3 years, and they always agree the thing is important, but then nothing ever improves in the Issues product. Maybe the new management at MicroSoft will fix their product management situation, but if not, I imagine we'll eventually do the migration to GitLab.

We have a custom bot project, http://github.com/zulip/zulipbot, to deal with some of these issues where possible, and every other large project we talk to does the same thing, more or less.

See more
Joshua Dean Küpper
CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 18 upvotes · 273.3K 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
Bamboo logo

Bamboo

457
440
17
Tie automated builds, tests, and releases together in a single workflow
457
440
+ 1
17
PROS OF BAMBOO
  • 10
    Integrates with other Atlassian tools
  • 4
    Great notification scheme
  • 2
    Great UI
  • 1
    Has Deployment Projects
CONS OF BAMBOO
  • 5
    Expensive

related Bamboo posts

xie zhifeng
Shared insights
on
Bamboo
Jenkins
GitLab
at

I am choosing a DevOps toolset for my team. GitLab is open source and quite cloud-native. Jenkins has a very popular environment system but old-style technicals. Bamboo is very nice but integrated only with Atlassian products.

See more
TeamCity logo

TeamCity

1K
900
307
TeamCity is an ultimate Continuous Integration tool for professionals
1K
900
+ 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
    Free for open source
  • 12
    Can run jobs in parallel
  • 8
    Crossplatform
  • 4
    REST API
  • 4
    Great support by jetbrains
  • 4
    Fully-functional out of the box
  • 4
    Projects hierarchy
  • 4
    Chain dependencies
  • 3
    100+ plugins
  • 3
    Free for small teams
  • 3
    Per-project permissions
  • 3
    Personal notifications
  • 3
    Build templates
  • 2
    Ide plugins
  • 2
    GitLab integration
  • 2
    Smart build failure analysis and tracking
  • 2
    Upload build artifacts
  • 2
    Artifact dependencies
  • 2
    Build progress messages promoting from running process
  • 1
    TeamCity Professional is FREE
  • 1
    Powerful build chains / pipelines
  • 1
    Built-in artifacts repository
  • 1
    Repository-stored, full settings dsl with ide support
  • 0
    Official reliable support
  • 0
    High-Availability
  • 0
    Hosted internally
CONS OF TEAMCITY
  • 1
    Proprietary
  • 1
    High costs for more than three build agents
  • 1
    User friendly
  • 1
    User-friendly

related TeamCity posts

Tymoteusz Paul
Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 4.6M 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 · 312.6K 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
Appveyor logo

Appveyor

118
119
93
Continuous Integration and Deployment service for busy Windows developers
118
119
+ 1
93
PROS OF APPVEYOR
  • 20
    Github integration
  • 18
    Simple, reliable & powerful
  • 11
    Hosted
  • 11
    YML-based configuration
  • 10
    Nuget support
  • 6
    Windows support
  • 4
    Automatic deployment
  • 4
    Free for open source
  • 3
    Great product, responsive people, free for open-source
  • 2
    Easy PowerShell support
  • 2
    Easy handling of secret keys
  • 1
    Advanced build workers available
  • 1
    Remote Desktop into Build Worker
CONS OF APPVEYOR
  • 1
    Complex user interface
  • 1
    Poor documentation

related Appveyor posts

Shared insights
on
Travis CI
Appveyor
GitHub

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.

See more
Codeship logo

Codeship

1K
727
1.5K
A Continuous Integration Platform in the cloud
1K
727
+ 1
1.5K
PROS OF CODESHIP
  • 215
    Simple deployments
  • 179
    Easy setup
  • 159
    Github integration
  • 147
    Continuous deployment
  • 110
    Bitbucket integration
  • 97
    Easy ui
  • 84
    Slack integration
  • 66
    Fast builds
  • 61
    Great ui
  • 61
    Great customer support
  • 28
    SSH debug access
  • 27
    Free plan for 5 private repositories
  • 27
    Easy to get started
  • 23
    Competitively priced
  • 20
    Notifications
  • 20
    Hipchat, Campfire integrations
  • 16
    Awesome UI
  • 15
    Fast
  • 14
    Great documentation
  • 13
    Great experience
  • 12
    Free for open source
  • 10
    Great Tutorials
  • 4
    GitLab integration
  • 4
    Free
  • 4
    Easy to use, above all and its free for basic use
  • 3
    Easy for CI first timers
  • 3
    BitBucket Support
  • 3
    Very easy to get started
  • 3
    Build private Github repos on the free plan
  • 3
    Awesome
  • 2
    Super easy setup, works great with py.test/tox
  • 2
    Openshift integration
  • 2
    Great support, even on free tier
  • 2
    AppEngine integration
  • 2
    Easy debugging with ssh
  • 2
    Integrates with other free software
  • 2
    Superfast team work integration
  • 2
    Grepping Codeship = 1 day. Grepping Bamboo = 1 month
  • 2
    Easy to set up, very nice GitHub integration
  • 2
    Up and running in few minutes, and above all UI
CONS OF CODESHIP
  • 3
    Ui could use some polishing
  • 0
    Antiquated ui
  • 0
    Difficult to answer build questions

related Codeship posts

Sebastian Dellwig
Tech Lead at Porsche Digital GmbH · | 6 upvotes · 134.5K views
Shared insights
on
GitLab CI
CircleCI
Codeship

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