ALM setup DEV to Test to Prod
Hi Guys
How do i setup ALM so that it only works
From DEV -- > Test
and then only Test --- > Prod
Currently i have
DEV
TEST In deployed mode synced with DEV
NO PROD
PS:- I know this is against the best practice as we should do DEV --- > Test and DEV ----> Prod but trust me client only want above .
Thanks
Answers
-
The only way I can think of to do this is to allow the user that would run the sync into Prod to only have access to Test and Prod. Otherwise, DEV would also always be compatible. If the Workspace admin only has access to TEST and PROD then they would not be able to access DEV, nor its revision tags. That might be a weird concept for user access, but it is the only way that I can think of!
Jason
0 -
0
-
You could also have the Model Role set to no access in DEV within the same workspace. They will not be able to pull a revision tag from a model they don't have access to.
0 -
Cool . I will wait if anyone has any other suggestions else yours is the answer0
-
As per your query, you already have DEV and TEST.
If all the testing is complete and user has given the green signal to deploy, Copy the TEST to PROD workspace(If it exists) or copy TEST to PROD in same Workspace and rename as PROD.(May be you need to delete the data in PROD after deployment - depends on the project)
Make a small change in DEV and create a revision tag.
Move the Changes to TEST from DEV.
Next Move the changes from TEST to PROD model and you are all set.
DEV-- >TEST ---> PROD.
Hope it helps.
0 -
Thanks for your response but my question was more around I only ever want to deploy from test to prod . When you try and sync prod it also gives dev as an option .0
-
Yes , It gives DEV and UAT in the drop down in Prod. We need to select UAT.
If you select DEV ---> Prod , it works but later on , when you create one more tag and push to UAT and then feel to take it to Prod from UAT, it will fail bcos UAT and PROD will not be in sync.
We need to be careful what we are trying to achieve in each model.
DEV is for development with less data
UAT is for testing and Sign off with Prod sample data.
Prod is for Actual Production.
0 -
If you select DEV ---> Prod , it works but later on , when you create one more tag and push to UAT and then feel to take it to Prod from UAT, it will fail bcos UAT and PROD will not be in sync.
I tried above and it syncs unless i am missing something . Below are the steps i followed
Copied test and renamed prod ( deployed mode)
now i have dev -> test ( deployed) -> prod (deployed )
did a rev tag 1 from dev --> synced to test and then synced prod from test
did another rev tag 2 in dev and sycned straight to prod and not to test
did another rev tag 3 in dev and synced to test
now test has 1 and 3
prod has 1 and 2
i then synced test to prod successfully which means all are in sync
0 -
I don’t think that is true. You can push Revision tags from test model as long as your test model has latest revision tag. Once model is in Deployed mode it will not go out of sync unless you take it out of deployed mode.
0 -
I second @jasonblinn
However If your client wants it to do that way. Its our responsibility to make them understand what are the best practices and the need of having different workspaces. Have you ever considered splitting the same workspace into two. Splitting workspace is not a big ask you can raise a ticket with anaplan and they will be able to split the workspace without having to add/buy more space.0 -
@Misbah I agree with what you saying but I want to make sure if it is even technically possible. It seems like its not even technically possible . Access control will act as a work around but people with access can still deploy.
Even segregation of workspaces will not work as you still need someone to deploy structural changes from dev to prod to uat .
May be it has to be managed by a business process rather than technically
0 -
Hi, I'm having the same question from a customer on being able to synch DEV - TEST and then TEST - PROD. Each model is in a different workspace. Can you tell me if one of you managed to validate a technical solution for this ? @Misbah, @jasonblinn
0
