Pushing changes from Shippable to Github

If you use Shippable as your Continuous Integration server on an open source project hosted on Github you will find that by default you cannot push any changes back to Github such as when you increment a version number and wish to push the changes back. This is because Shippable uses HTTPS for public Github repositories so trying to push changes back to it will require a username and password.

Solution

The solution is actually simple and requires two steps, firstly installing the the deployment key in your user or repository and then switching git over to ssh rather than https.

Deployment key

You can find your shippable deployment key on the right hand side of your account, this is a standard SSH public key, copy this key.

You can either add this key to your repository or to your user (or another user if you so choose) that has access to your repositories. Be aware though that Github restricts the re-use of keys so if you add it to your repository then you can only have it on a single repository and shippable only provides a single deployment key. I personally would recommend creating another Github account that shippable can use and controlling access to the repository through that account with the deployment key.

Adding the key is easy, go to your settings on your Github account and choose SSH Keys on the left and click 'Add SSH Key' give it a title and paste the key into the box.

Shippable configuration

Shippable uses a yml file (shippable.yml) located in the root of your project, in the before_script section you just need to add the following line:
 - git remote set-url origin git@github.com:$REPO_NAME.git

To confirm that the URL has changed you can add the following line to confirm the new origin url.
 - git config --get remote.origin.url

$REPO_NAME is an environment variable provided by Shippable that resolves to the plain repository path, e.g. for the Twitter commons repository using the URL https://github.com/twitter/commons.git $REPO_NAME resolves to twitter/commons

Comments

  1. Luke22 May 2015 at 16:37

    Thanks for the write up, I just go bit by this trying to push build numbers for tags.

    Maybe we should add them to the docs https://github.com/Shippable/docsv2

    ReplyDelete
  2. basejump16 June 2017 at 13:02

    $REPO_NAME needed to be changed to $REPO_FULL_NAME for me and your post worked out. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Jerry16 August 2017 at 05:29

    Free easy & simple way to learn programming online we provide niit projects, assignments, cycle tests and much more..
    visit ====>>> https://githubhelp.blogspot.in

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gradle and the parent pom

We've all got used to various maven features that we have come to rely on, and in my effort to migrate to Gradle I have endeavoured to find alternative replacments, one of which is the parent POM functionality. Gradle does not natively have this feature that as Maven users we rely on. Workarounds There are a number of workarounds documented, firstly the most common is to use the apply from to load a file from a URI (you can use a URL) but this is not ideal for many reasons. The alternative is to write your own plugin that alters your build.gradle file. Anorakgirl has a great write-up on how to do this here  Gradle and the parent POM  and is the inspiration for my plugin. Gradle pater-build plugin I love Anorakgirls write up but I was thinking that it really is a workaround and devs would need to start to understand the internal Gradle API, so if the apply from syntax has its short comings as Anorakgirl pointed out then how about subverting or working around them. I created
Read more

Goodbye Shippable Hello ... CircleCI

Migration number 1... CircleCI  how did it go and what did I think? Well it was pretty smooth, the free tier worked pretty well. The configuration for a Java project was smaller than what I ended up with with Shippable (I could remove some of the boiler plate setup). The builds were significantly faster than Shippable. Initial implementation was quick to do, I like the way it walked me through creating the first configuration. however trying to refine it into something more robust took a fair amount of time and that is where I came across some of it's shortcomings: Workflows are a bit confusing, and whilst it seemed like they would be ideal for different flows for building and publishing the artefacts this ended up not being the case and it would have been simpler just to use jobs at the top level if it wasn't wanting to inject 'secrets' into the build. Unable to define a global setup step, this looks like what an 'orb' would be used for but ended up just sourci
Read more