Chris Oldwood from The OldWood Thing
As you might have already gathered if you’d read my 2014 post “Building the Pipeline - Process Led or Product Led?” I’m very much in favour of developing a build and deployment process locally first, then automating that, rather than clicking buttons in a dedicated CI/CD tool and hoping I can debug it later. I usually end up at least partially scripting builds anyway  to save time waiting for the IDE to open  when I just need some binaries for a dependency, so it’s not wasted effort.
If other teams prefer to configure their build or deployment through a tool’s UI I don’t really have a problem with that if I know I can replay the same steps locally should I need to test something out as the complexity grows. What I do find disturbing though is when some of the tasks use inline scripts to do something non-trivial, like perform the entire deployment. What’s even more disturbing is when that task script is then duplicated across environments and maintained independently.
There are various reasons why we use a version control tool, but first and foremost they provide a history, which implies that we can trace back any changes that have been made and we have a natural backup should we need to roll back or restore the build server.
Admittedly most half-decent build and deployment tools come with some form of versioning built in which you gives that safety net. However having that code versioned in a separate tool and repository from the main codebase means that you have to work harder to correlate what version of the system requires what version of the build process. CI/CD tools tend to present you with a fancy UI for looking at the history rather than giving you direct access to, say, it’s internal git repo. And even then what the tool usually gives you is “what” changed, but does not also provide the commentary on “why” it was changed. Much of what I wrote in my “Commit Checklist” equally applies to build and deployment scripts as it does production code.
Although Jenkins isn’t the most polished of tools compared to, say, TeamCity it is pretty easy to configure one of the 3rd party plugins to yank the configuration files out and check them into the same repo as the source code along with a suitable comment. As a consequence any time the repo is tagged due to a build being promoted the Jenkins build configuration gets included for free.
My biggest gripe is not with the versioning aspect though, which I believe is pretty important for any non-trivial process, but it’s when the script is manually duplicated across environments. Having no single point of truth, from a logic perspective, is simply asking for trouble. The script will start to drift as subtleties in the environmental differences become enshrined directly in the logic rather than becoming parameterised behaviours.
The tool’s text editor for inline script blocks is usually a simple edit box designed solely for trivial changes; anything more significant is expected to be handled by pasting into a real editor instead. But we all know different people like different editors and so this becomes another unintentional source of difference as tabs and spaces fight for domination.
Fundamentally there should be one common flow of logic that works for every environment. The differences between them should boil down to simple settings, like credentials, or cardinality of resources, e.g. the number of machines in the cluster. Occasionally there may be custom branches in logic, such as the need for a proxy server, but it should be treated as a minor deviation that could apply to any environment, but just happens to only be applicable to, say, one at the moment.
This naturally leads onto the inherent lack of testability outside of the tool and workflow. It’s even worse if the script makes use of some variable substitution system that the CI/CD tool provides because that means you have to manually fix-up the code before running it outside the tool, or keep running it in the tool and use printf() style debugging by looking at the task’s output.
All script engines I’m aware of accept arguments, so why not run the script as an external script and pass the arguments from the tool in the tried and tested way? This means the tool runs it pretty much the same way you do except perhaps for some minor environmental differences, like user account or current working directory which are all common problems and easily overcome. Most modern scripting languages come with a debugger too which seems silly to give up.
Of course this doesn’t mean that you have to make every single configuration setting a separate parameter to the script, that would be overly complicated too. Maybe you just provide one parameter which is a settings file for the environment with a bunch of key/value pairs. You can then tweak the settings as appropriate while you test and debug. While idempotence and the ideas behind Desired State Configuration (DSC) are highly desirable, there is no reason we can’t also borrow from the Design for Testability guidebook here too by adding features making it easier to test.
Don’t forget that scripting languages often come with unit test frameworks these days too which can allow you to mock out code which has nasty side-effects so you can check your handling and orchestration logic. For example PowerShell has Pester which really helps bring some extra discipline to script development; an area which has historically been tough due to the kinds of side-effects created by executing the code.
When an inline script has grown beyond the point where Hoare suggests “there are obviously no deficiencies”, which is probably anything more than a trivial calculation or invocation of another tool, then it should be decomposed into smaller functional units. Then each of these units can be tested and debugged in isolation and perhaps the inline script then merely contains a couple of lines of orchestration code, which would be trivial to replicate at a REPL / prompt.
For example anything around manipulating configuration files is a perfect candidate for factoring out into a function or child script. It might be less efficient to invoke the same function a few times rather than read and write the file once, but in the grand scheme of things I’d bet it’s marginal in comparison to the rest of the build or deployment process.
Many modern scripting languages have a mechanism for loading some sort of module or library of code. Setting up an internal package manager is a pretty heavyweight option in comparison to publishing a .zip file of scripts but if it helps keep the script complexity under control and provides a versioned repository that can be reliably queried at execution time, then why not go for that instead?
Scripts are Artefacts
It’s easy to see how these things happen. What starts off as a line or two of script code eventually turns into a behemoth before anyone realises it’s not been versioned and there are multiple copies. After all, the deployment requirements historically come up at the end of the journey, after the main investment in the feature has already happened. The pressure is then on to get it live, and build & deployment, like tests, is often just another second class citizen.
The Walking Skeleton came about in part to push back against this attitude and make the build pipeline and tests part and parcel of the whole delivery process; it should not be an afterthought. This means it deserves the same rigour we apply elsewhere in our process.
Personally I like to see everything go through the pipeline, by which I mean that source code, scripts, configuration, etc. all enter the pipeline as versioned inputs and are passed along until the deployed product pops out the other end. The way you build your artefacts is inherently tied to the source code and project configuration that produces it. Configuration, whether it be infrastructure or application settings, is also linked to the version of the tools, scripts, and code which consumes it. It’s more awkward to inject version numbers into scripts, like you do with binaries, but even pushing them through the pipeline in a .zip file with version number in the filename makes a big difference to tracking the “glue”.
Ultimately any piece of the puzzle that directly affects the ability to safely deliver continuous increments of a product needs to be held in high regard and treated with the respect it deserves.
 See “Cleaning the Workspace” for more about why I don’t trust my IDE to clean up after itself.
 I’m sure I could load Visual Studio, etc. in “safe mode” to avoid waiting for all the plug-ins and extensions to initialise but it still seems “wrong” to load an entire IDE just to invoke the same build tool I could invoke almost directly from the command line myself.