CI/CD DevOps and Python
CI/CD DevOps and Python
We take a look at a couple pain points when it comes to implementing a CI/CD pipeline with a Python-based project. Do you agree with these challenges?
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
Read why times series is the fastest growing database category.
See this presentation for the 16 gates that separate a good idea from secure, productive use of software. While a lot of DevOps folks like the idea, when it comes to implementing it for Python apps, they get confused.
The confusion seems to stem from Python's lack of a proper "build" step in the CI/CD pipeline. I've had the "everything involves a build" argument and the "well setup.py is analogous to a build" arguments. I have to acquiesce to these positions as part of making progress. In this case, reasoning by analogy can be misleading.
I want to focus on the two gates that are part of the code itself, separate from the rest of the pipeline.
- Static Analysis
- >80% Code Coverage (which implies Unit Tests)
My preference is to run the unit test suite first and get that out of the way. If the unit test suite fails, or fails to cover 80% of the code, any other considerations are moot.
I like Git triggers based on Pull Requests (PR's) and Merge to Master for checking these two conditions. I like the idea that a PR can't be discussed until unit tests pass. They can also be part of whatever other pipeline is going on, but I like them to be done early and often.
(I worked on a sprint team where the PR unit test wasn't trusted by one of the devs: he'd carefully check out the branch and rerun the unit tests. His comments were good, so the extra effort paid off. I guess.)
Yes. We have acceptance tests for our features written in Gherkin. And we have pytest fixtures that are used by pytest-bdd to process the scenarios in the Gherkin feature files. It actually works out nicely because we have a cucumber.json file that makes everyone happy that we've run an acceptance test suite along with our unit test suite.
What's important is the coverage report is painless and automatic.
And it's compatible with the Ruby-based cucumber tool without involving any actual ruby.
For integration testing, we use Behave. This is a bit more cumbersome than pytest-bdd, but it's appropriate for the bigger-picture testing where we have a docker cluster and have to see a number of "Then" steps to confirm operations spread across a suite of microservices.
The goofy question that often leads to endless confusion is the relationship between unit testing and "build." The setup.py setup definition includes a `tests_require` parameter. This *should be* all that's needed to do `python setup.py test`, which *should be* all that's involved in testing.
Is it a "build?" No. But you can tell the DevOps folks it's a build if it makes them happy.
There are several kinds of static analysis. Folks who work in Java are used to having Sonar analysis performed. This is above and beyond the static analysis already performed by the compiler. It seems excessive to me, but folks deploying Java seem to like it.
For Python, there are two important static analysis tools. And this is another source of profound confusion for DevOps folks new to Python.
- pylint (I prefer this over pyflakes and pep8. See About style guide of python and linter tool for a long list of tools.)
I like to extract the last line of the pylint output and use that numeric score as the "bottom line" on static analysis part 1. While the default setting is 9.5, that can be a challenge, and we prefer 9.0 as well as some local pylintrc modifications to modify some checkers (e.g., set line length to 120.)
For mypy, it's a little bit more complex. We're still fumbling around here.
Ideally, the type hints are all clean and mypy has nothing to say. We can, of course, fix any errors by claiming everything uses Any and returns Any and every assignment statement sets an Any value. But that's so wrong.
There are (still) modules which require typeshed stub definitions. Ideally, we'd provide these. This would be better than using Any as a hack-around. While good, it's a lot of work.
For now, I think it's sensible to have two "pass" rules for mypy: clean or typeshed error. If mypy is silent, that's perfect. If mypy can't find stubs in typeshed, we can let this go for now and log an issue from the CI/CD pipeline to note the presence of technical debt.
In the best of all worlds, we'd fork the package, fix the type hints, and put in a PR. That's a lot better than using typeshed to work around the lack of hints.
And, of course, there's the "build" question. For mypy to work, the dependencies (or their typeshed stubs) must be present. We wind up doing a `python setup.py install` to build out the requirements. Is this a "build?" Maybe. You can tell the DevOps folks it's a build if it makes them happy.
If you want idempotent server (or container) builds, you'll need to be sure that you pin specific versions. It can help to break this into two parts:
- A requirements.txt with specific versions
- A generic version-free high-level list in setup.py
The reason for this separation is to make it easy to do a `pip install` or `conda create` from the detailed requirements. Once that's out of the way, the `python setup.py` will run very quickly. If you're working with Docker containers, the `pip install` (or `conda create`) can be part of the Dockerfile, and then tests or static analysis can be run separately, after the initial wave of installations.
Published at DZone with permission of Steven Lott , DZone MVB. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.