Skip to Content
avatar image
Former Member

ChaRM dual landscape design with single Preproduction/Staging system

Hi All,

Currently we have below dual track landscape with single Pre-Production/Staging system

Maintenance Landscape:

MSD -> MSQ -> PRE -> PRD

Project Landscape:

DEV -> QAS -> PRE -> PRD

Currently using manual retrofit to synchronize the landscape .After development transport release move the changes to N or N+1 systems and synchronize the landscape.

For ChaRM workflow design options:

PRE system will refresh form PRD before monthly or quarterly releases.

Option:1( Permanently linked the Preproduction(PRE) in N landscape and move the change as show below


  • For N landscape changes move like MSD -> MSQ -> PRE -> PRD and auto retrofit to DEV system
  • For N+1 landscape chanegs move like DEV -> QAS -> MSD -> MSQ -> PRE -> PRD .Here retrofit change move with project change like quarterly, monthly,...
  • Use overwrite option during cut over from PRE -> MSD ( due to Development) .so we need to cleanup all the open transport before cutover movement to N landscape.
  • Using this design Support change move two times to N landscape upto PRD due to retrofit.
  • Project change integration testing happen in QAS
  • Scenario/Regression happen in MSQ
  • UAT\Performance test happen in PRE
  • So most of the defect will identify in the QAS\PRE systems. So this required more effect and time consuming process to move the defect all over the landscape again.

Option:2 ( Permanently linked the Preproduction(PRE) in N+1 landscape )

  • For N landscape changes move like MSD -> MSQ -> PRE -> PRD and auto retrofit to DEV system
  • For N+1 landscape chanegs move like DEV -> QAS -> MSD -> MSQ -> PRE -> PRD .Here retrofit change move with project change like quarterly, monthly,...
  • Use overwrite option during cut over from PRE -> MSD ( due to Development) .so we need to cleanup all the open transport before cutover movement to N landscape.
  • Using this design Support change move two times to N landscape due to retrofit.
  • Project change integration testing happen in QAS
  • Scenario/Regression testing happen in PRE
  • Smoke test happen in MSD
  • UAT\Performance test happen in MSQ.So most of the defect will identify in the PRE systems (N+1 landscape) and fix the defect easily in N+1 landscape itself and do the cutover to N landscape

Option:3 ( Existing process)

  • For N landscape changes move like MSD -> MSQ -> PRD and auto retrofit to DEV after development transport release and import in MSQ.
  • For N+1 landscape changes move like DEV -> QAS -> PRE -> PRD and auto retrofit to MSD after PRD import.
  • In this option, Retrofit happen on both the landscape and it is difficult to handle the retrofit process.

Question:

  • Which is the best option for ChaRM workflow design
  • Are any other way to manage the single Preproduction/Staging system for dual track?
  • What are the pros and cons in option 1 ,option 2 and option 3.

Rg,

Karthik

idgon.png (45.6 kB)
kn3u0.png (92.8 kB)
Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

1 Answer

  • Oct 16, 2016 at 07:12 PM

    Hi Karthik,

    I would recommend the option 1 as it gives better level of control and ensure production support Rail is updated with Project changes. This is based on the assumption all Enhancements/Upgrades are done in Project Rail and Maintenance Rail is strictly used for Emergency bug fix changes.

    Pros

    1. Project changes are moved to maintenance rail on a regular basis, MSD will be able to support PRD with latest changes.

    2. Smoke Test scenarios can be executed in MSD & MSD as code in MSD will get over written during the Transport movement.

    3. Development team can save effort by using Auto Retrofit.

    Cons

    1. Code in DEV will get over written during the Auto Retrofit process and may result in issues for Project Development.

    2. Retrofit tracking needs to be done to ensure all changes made in MSD are retrofitted to DEV. Missing the retrofit can cause issues when DEV transports are imported to MSD resulting in code getting overwritten.

    3. Functional teams and Application Development team needs to be given training for Auto Retrofit.

    Issue in Option 2 is using auto retrofit in both the Development systems. This could lead to version conflicts if not done carefully. If CSOL and DGP is enabled, that will also require another layer of scrutiny.

    Regards,

    Prasath

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded