Friday, January 25, 2019

Connecting Azure DevOps with Lifecycle Services for Release piplelines

A week ago, Microsoft annouced the release of a new Azure DevOps Task. Followed by more details the setup from the announcements author, Joris de Gruyter. And with the help of this post by Business Application MVP, Munib Ahmed, I sat down and ran through the setup a couple of days ago.

I wanted to briefly add some additional thoughts as well, some considerations of my own, while we wait for the official documentation.

This new feature is very quick and easy to setup, and is something everyone should adopt sooner than later. It shaves off the time spent downloading the complete build artifact somewhere and then uploading it to the Dynamics Lifecycle Services Project Asset Library. After a successful build of the full application you will get the package automatically "released" and uploaded to the asset library.

We expect more "tasks" to be added, allowing us to setup a release pipeline that also let us automatically install a successful build on a designated target environment. So getting this setup now, and have the connection working, will set the stage for adding the next features as they are announced.

Here are some of the requirements and considerations while you set this up:

  • You need to register an Azure Application of type Native (public, multi-tenant). While it is said you can use the preview experience to register the app in the Azure Portal, I had to use the "non-preview" experience, to ensure I got a correct Native Azure app registration, and not a Web app. While you can add the necessary permissions setup (user_impersonation), you need to run the admin consent for the permissions to work. If you are setting it up, and you are not Global Admin or Application Admin, then you will need to get someone else with necessary permissions to run the admin consent part. 
  • The connection also requires user credentials as part of the setup. This should not be a just any user, if you think about it. You don't want the connection to break just because the password was changed, or the user was disabled. Also multi-factor (or two-factor) authentication will not work here. So you might want to create yourself a dedicated user for this connection. The user does not need any licenses, just a normal cloud user you have setup and logged on with at least once. Also the user needs to be added to the Lifecycle Services project with at least Team member permissions (access to upload to Asset Library). Log on to LCS with the user once and verify access.
  • When you create the release pipeline for the first time, you will need to install the Azure DevOps task extension. Search for "Dynamics" and you should find the "Dynamics 365 Unified Operations Tools". If you are doing the setup with a user that has access to many different Azure DevOps organizations (ie. you're the partner developer doing this cross multiple customers), you will need to make sure you install it on the correct Azure DevOps Organization. When it is installed, you will have to refresh the task selection to see the new available task(s), including the new task named "Dynamics Lifecycle Services (LCS) Asset Upload". 
  • When configuring the task, you will want to use variables to replace parts of the strings, like the name of the asset, the description, and so on. When you run a release, one of the steps actually list out all the available variables, though with a slightly different syntax. Have a look at the list of available variables on this article, plus the top on how to see the values they are populated with upon a run.
If you already have a successful build ready, go ahead and setup the release pipeline and run it once to see it succeed - or fail. If it fails while trying to connect, it could be one of the following errors:
  • AADSTS65001: The user or administrator has not consented to use the application with ID '***' named 'NAME_OF_APP'. Send an interactive authorization request for this user and resource.
    Here you have not successfully run the admin consent. Someone with proper permissions needs to run the "Grant permissions" in the Azure Portal.
  • AADSTS50076: Due to a configuration change made by your administrator, or because you moved to a new location, you must use multi-factor authentication to access.
    This is most likely because the user credentials used on the connection is secured with multi-factor authentication. Either use a different account without MFA, or disable it. Most likely it is on for the account for a reason. 
I would strongly encourage everyone to set this up, and feel free to use the community forums, Twitter or ask on the comments section, if you run into issues.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Important changes to how we will update the production going forward

Not long ago, it was published on docs some updates on how we will be doing self-servicing of our non-production environments. There is one particular statement I want to address with this post:
You will need to provide a combined deployable package for customizations. That is, all custom extension packages, including ISV packages, must be deployed as a single software deployable package. You will not be able to deploy one module at a time. This was always a recommended best practice and is now enforced.
It has been recommended for a long while to always ensure any changes to the application, either updates or when adding new modules, are serviced first to the sandbox and then to production in one single package. And then I mean the same single package containing everything which is not already in standard. This would include:
  • ISV solutions and deliveries
  • Customer specific customizations (ie from your partner)
  • Hotfixes (relevant only for version 8.0 and older supporting individual hotfixes)
It may seem counter-intuitive and unnecessary to do it like this. You may argue we should be able to push individual modules and updates to the sandbox and to production. Why enforce "single package"? What are the benefits of this?

The core reason is that we are moving away from actually updating the application, but we are instead actually replacing the application. The application becomes an immutable piece of software, that does not change or is susceptible to change. 

This means the "updated" version of the application instead is setup and runs on a new instance, replacing the previous version of the application. The new pattern will sustain and ensure the following expectations:

Predictability - One single package having all the code and metadata, and all the module dependencies secured, ensures the same behavior every time it is used in a deployment.

Repeatability - Repeating the same package deployment on the next environment should have little to no risk, for example when repeating the install done in sandbox when installing in production.

Recovery and Rollback - The single package is a last good known state, which we can rollback to, in case we need to recover due to deployment failure. 

Scale-out - Reusing the same single package lets us easily and safely repeat deployment on new instances, and allowing for a safe and easy way to scale out.

Portability - The same package can be safely used if you for whatever reason needs to relocate your installation somewhere else around the world.

Think about all the benefits of this. It is music in my ears. 

In theory, today, you could service your sandbox and production with individual isolated packages. You could handle the order you install the packages, to ensure not breaking dependencies. You could install in a test environment to try test updated versions of packages, in order to see if they broke something in conjunction with any of the other existing packages. It is possible - but it is not recommended. Instead, it is recommended to use the build and release procedures to create a single deployable package, containing all the changes, across all modules and packages.

Reading the announcement of the new immutable pattern for self-servicing environments is great news. It may change the way you've published updates in the past, if you used to push individual "delta" packages. If you've published single deployable packages from your build environment, you're following best practices, and the enforcement will not change how you've done things. 

What do you think about this? Share your comments and thoughts either in the comments or on Twitter.