Navigating Salesforce Deployment Strategies: Artifact vs. Delta Deployments

In the evolving landscape of Salesforce development, selecting an optimal deployment strategy is pivotal. This exploration contrasts two primary methodologies: artifact-based deployments, encompassing unlocked packages, source packages, and data packages, and delta deployments, which focus on deploying only the changes between versions or branches.

Deployment Strategies Demystified

• Artifact-Based Deployments encapsulate metadata, source code, and data configurations into various types of packages, such as Unlocked Packages, Source Packages, and Data Packages. These packages provide a structured, version-controlled approach to deployment, enabling modular development and independent management.
• Delta Deployments deploy changes by comparing different branches in a version control system, targeting efficiency by pushing only the modifications without packaging these changes into discrete units.

Diving into Scenarios

Scenario 1: Complex Salesforce Ecosystems

• Artifact-Based: In intricate environments like financial services, packaging functionalities into distinct units like Unlocked or Source Packages minimizes deployment risks by isolating changes. While this modularity aids in managing complex systems, coordinating dependencies during updates demands meticulous attention. For instance, an update to a core package may necessitate simultaneous updates to dependent packages to maintain system compatibility. Ensuring that all dependencies are resolved and that packages are deployed in the correct order can be a complex orchestration task.
• Delta Deployment: Suited for small, pinpointed changes but lacking in structured encapsulation, raising the potential for unintended impacts without diligent dependency management and exhaustive testing.
  In complex environments like those in financial services, identifying the precise set of changes for deployment can be intricate due to the interdependencies of components. The risk here is deploying a change that assumes the presence of another related change that was not included, leading to system instability or functionality gaps.

Scenario 2: Collaborative Development

• Artifact-Based: Distinct packages allow teams to work on separate functional units, diminishing cross-team dependencies. While fostering parallel development, the intertwined nature of package dependencies introduces an element of complexity in integration. In a collaborative setting with multiple teams, the challenge lies in package versioning and integration. Each team might work on different versions of a package, leading to potential conflicts when integrating on an environment. Resolving these conflicts while ensuring that the integrated package remains stable can be challenging.
• Delta Deployment: Promotes efficiency in incremental changes but may lead to integration hurdles, necessitating advanced strategies for resolving conflicts.
  With multiple teams working simultaneously, delta deployments can lead to integration bottlenecks where changes from one team inadvertently overwrite or conflict with changes from another. The challenge is not just in merging code/config in version control systems, but in ensuring that the merged changes function harmoniously in the shared environment.

Scenario 3: Streamlining CI/CD Pipelines

• Artifact-Based: The integration of various package types into CI/CD pipelines enhances automated testing and deployment processes. Although standalone package rollbacks are straightforward, the web of dependencies among packages can complicate rollback scenarios, demanding rigorous version and dependency scrutiny. Integrating multiple types of packages into CI/CD pipelines introduces complexity, particularly in automating the build and deployment processes for different package types. Ensuring that Data Packages are deployed after Source Packages, for instance, requires careful pipeline configuration and can complicate the automation process.
• Delta Deployment: Aligns with CI/CD for swift incremental updates. The lack of discrete versioning complicates rollback tracking, although supplementary tooling can aid in managing deployment records. They also introduce the risk of partial deployments where not all necessary changes are deployed due to branching complexities. This can result in a CI/CD pipeline that passes all tests but still leads to issues in production due to missing dependent changes.

Scenario 4: Release Management and Rollbacks

• Artifact-Based: Provides fine-grained control over feature deployment with packages. Rollback processes are generally manageable but can encounter challenges due to the interdependencies of packages, requiring coordinated efforts to ensure stability.
  While artifact-based deployments provide more clearer rollback paths, the challenge arises when dealing with interconnected packages. Rolling back a single package without considering its impact on dependent packages can lead to system inconsistencies or even failure, especially if the dependent packages have since been updated to rely on the newer version.
• Delta Deployment: Enables quick release cycles with rollbacks involving codebase alterations and redeployments, which are generally straightforward for isolated changes but can become intricate for complex updates. Rollbacks in delta deployments can become complex when a deployed change is tightly coupled with other changes that were not rolled back. This can lead to a situation where rolling back one set of changes necessitates a cascading series of rollbacks, complicating the restoration of system stability.

Scenario 5: Modular and Reusable Components

• Artifact-Based: Particularly beneficial in scenarios demanding reusability, such as healthcare systems. The use of distinct packages like Data Packages promotes consistency and reduces duplication across functionalities. Managing inter-package dependencies, however, necessitates vigilant governance to maintain system coherence.
  The modularity of artifact-based deployments is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it promotes reuse and clarity; on the other, it can lead to “package sprawl” where the number of packages becomes unwieldy, complicating management and oversight. Ensuring that reusable components are efficiently managed and that packages don’t become too granular or too broad requires careful planning and governance.
• Delta Deployment: When dealing with reusable components, delta deployments can lead to versioning inconsistencies where one part of the system relies on a newer version of a component, while another part relies on an older version. This inconsistency can lead to unpredictable behavior and challenges in maintaining component compatibility across the system.

Enriching the Artifact Perspective

Delta deployments offer the advantage of speed and efficiency by deploying only what has changed. However, they require meticulous attention to the dependencies and interactions between those changes. The main challenges revolve around ensuring that all interdependent changes are identified and included in the deployment, managing the complexities of merging changes from multiple development streams, and handling rollbacks and versioning in a way that maintains system integrity and stability.

Artifact-based deployments in Salesforce, encompassing Unlocked Packages, Source Packages, and Data Packages, offer a structured and modular approach to managing complex Salesforce environments. However, this approach introduces challenges related to package dependency management, versioning and integration conflicts in collaborative environments, CI/CD pipeline complexity, and the nuanced handling of rollbacks to maintain system integrity. Additionally, the potential for package sprawl necessitates disciplined package governance to ensure the system remains manageable and efficient.

If you are interested in learning more about artifact based deployment, join the #flxbl community by click the link here