feat: Rollback Plugin #191

tbarlow12 · 2019-07-04T01:53:27Z

Updates

Adds new rollback plugin
Fixes deploy list to show actual timestamp from name, which is used for rollback
Adds required functionality to AzureBlobStorageService and ArmService
Adds previously missing tests of required functionality

How to Use

Get a timestamp. Use

sls deploy list

to retrieve one.
2. Roll back function app to timestamp

sls rollback -t <timestamp>

Options

In deploy section of serverless.yml, you can specify whether to run from a blob URL or deploy the package directly to the function app by setting:

deploy:
  # Default is false
  runFromBlobUrl: true|false

Resolves [AB#317]

tbarlow12 · 2019-07-05T14:06:02Z

src/services/armService.ts

      const parameterValue = deployment.parameters[key];
      if (parameterValue) {
-        deploymentParameters[key] = { value: deployment.parameters[key] };
+        deploymentParameters[key] = (typeof parameterValue === "string") ? { value: parameterValue } : { value: parameterValue.value }


@wbreza When I get the ARM template from the previous deployment, the parameter values look like:

{ type: "String", value: "value1" }

When I just used that object rather than extracting the value, it fails. I guess it doesn't like the type attribute for some reason. Do you have any cleaner ways for how to do this?

The deployTemplate(...) is called it is called with deployment params of simple key/value pairs and then converted into the final format ARM templates expect by default. What I imagine is happening is you are passing the params as already final constructed ARM params from the pre-existing deployment.

wbreza

Looking good! Added a few questions and suggestions.

wbreza · 2019-07-05T20:02:59Z

src/plugins/deploy/azureDeployPlugin.test.ts

+    expect(sls.cli.log).lastCalledWith(expectedLogStatement);
+  });
+
+  it("lists deployments without timestamps", async () => {


Why would a deployment NOT have a timestamp?

I think i see now - You are interpolating it from the file name - not the timestamp from the actual deployment?

I "stamp" it when the package is being created. I wanted to use the timestamp from the deployment, but since someone "could" have the same deployment name, I'd have to scan through all deployments to check which one was most recent. It seemed more safe to just include the timestamp in the name of the deployment. I checked the response from the deployment of the resource group, and the only property included is the provisioning state

wbreza · 2019-07-05T20:07:05Z

src/services/armService.ts

      const parameterValue = deployment.parameters[key];
      if (parameterValue) {
-        deploymentParameters[key] = { value: deployment.parameters[key] };
+        deploymentParameters[key] = (typeof parameterValue === "string") ? { value: parameterValue } : { value: parameterValue.value }


The deployTemplate(...) is called it is called with deployment params of simple key/value pairs and then converted into the final format ARM templates expect by default. What I imagine is happening is you are passing the params as already final constructed ARM params from the pre-existing deployment.

wbreza · 2019-07-05T20:10:49Z

src/services/functionAppService.ts

-    await this.uploadZippedArfifactToFunctionApp(functionApp);
-    await this.uploadZippedArtifactToBlobStorage();
+    const functionZipFile = this.getFunctionZipFile();
+    await this.uploadZippedArfifactToFunctionApp(functionApp, functionZipFile);


Can these be done in parallel via Promise.all() ??

wbreza · 2019-07-05T20:11:47Z

src/services/functionAppService.ts

  }

-  private async uploadZippedArfifactToFunctionApp(functionApp) {
+  public async uploadZippedArfifactToFunctionApp(functionApp: Site, functionZipFile: string) {


why switching to public? Needed?

It's used inside the rollback service now. to re-deploy function zip to the function app

wbreza · 2019-07-05T20:14:37Z

src/services/rollbackService.ts

+    const { template } = await resourceService.getDeploymentTemplate(deployment.name);
+    return {
+      template,
+      parameters: deployment.properties.parameters,


If you convert the params back to the expected format here you can remove the special case in the ArmService that you had asked me about.

will do. thanks

PIC123

Looks good to me! Still testing it out fully locally, and you have some conflicts that need to be resolved first, but everything seems good! Very excited to have this feature out

## Updates - Adds new `rollback` plugin - Fixes `deploy list` to show actual timestamp from name, which is used for rollback - Adds required functionality to `AzureBlobStorageService` and `ArmService` - Adds previously missing tests of required functionality ## How to Use 1. Get a timestamp. Use ``` sls deploy list ``` to retrieve one. 2. Roll back function app to timestamp ``` sls rollback -t <timestamp> ``` ## Options In `deploy` section of `serverless.yml`, you can specify whether to run from a blob URL or deploy the package directly to the function app by setting: ```yaml deploy: # Default is false runFromBlobUrl: true|false ``` Resolves [AB#317]

tbarlow12 requested a review from wbreza July 4, 2019 01:54

tbarlow12 self-assigned this Jul 4, 2019

tbarlow12 requested a review from mydiemho July 4, 2019 01:58

tbarlow12 removed their assignment Jul 4, 2019

tbarlow12 commented Jul 5, 2019

View reviewed changes

wbreza approved these changes Jul 5, 2019

View reviewed changes

tbarlow12 force-pushed the tabarlow/rollback-plugin branch 2 times, most recently from 7d84091 to ce90f3f Compare July 5, 2019 21:40

PIC123 approved these changes Jul 5, 2019

View reviewed changes

feat: Rollback Plugin

057c446

tbarlow12 force-pushed the tabarlow/rollback-plugin branch from ce90f3f to 057c446 Compare July 6, 2019 02:29

fix: Respond to PR feedback

8f66a67

tbarlow12 merged commit cb1f295 into dev Jul 6, 2019

tbarlow12 deleted the tabarlow/rollback-plugin branch July 6, 2019 02:55

feat: Rollback Plugin #191

feat: Rollback Plugin #191

Uh oh!

Conversation

tbarlow12 commented Jul 4, 2019

Updates

How to Use

Options

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wbreza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PIC123 left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

PIC123 left a comment •

edited

Loading