Pros of toolkit

• More lightweight and focused on GitHub Actions specifically
• Easier to get started with for developers familiar with JavaScript/TypeScript
• Better integration with GitHub's ecosystem and features

Cons of toolkit

• Less comprehensive task coverage compared to azure-pipelines-tasks
• May require more custom coding for complex workflows
• Limited to GitHub Actions, while azure-pipelines-tasks works with Azure Pipelines

Code Comparison

toolkit:

import * as core from '@actions/core'
import * as github from '@actions/github'

try {
  const nameToGreet = core.getInput('who-to-greet')
  console.log(`Hello ${nameToGreet}!`)
} catch (error) {
  core.setFailed(error.message)
}

azure-pipelines-tasks:

import tl = require('azure-pipelines-task-lib/task');

async function run() {
    try {
        const inputString: string = tl.getInput('samplestring', true);
        console.log('Hello', inputString);
    } catch (err) {
        tl.setResult(tl.TaskResult.Failed, err.message);
    }
}

run();

The toolkit code is more concise and uses modern JavaScript features, while azure-pipelines-tasks uses a more traditional TypeScript approach with async/await. The toolkit also provides direct access to GitHub-specific functionality through the @actions/github package.

Pros of jx

• More focused on Kubernetes-native CI/CD and cloud-native applications
• Provides a complete DevOps platform with built-in GitOps workflows
• Offers automated environment promotion and versioning

Cons of jx

• Steeper learning curve for teams not familiar with Kubernetes
• Less extensive task library compared to Azure Pipelines Tasks
• More opinionated approach, which may limit flexibility in some scenarios

Code Comparison

azure-pipelines-tasks:

- task: NuGetCommand@2
  inputs:
    restoreSolution: '**/*.sln'
- task: VSBuild@1
  inputs:
    solution: '**/*.sln'
    msbuildArgs: '/p:DeployOnBuild=true /p:WebPublishMethod=Package /p:PackageAsSingleFile=true /p:SkipInvalidConfigurations=true /p:PackageLocation="$(build.artifactStagingDirectory)"'
    platform: 'Any CPU'
    configuration: 'Release'

jx:

pipeline:
  agent:
    image: gcr.io/jenkinsxio/builder-go
  stages:
  - name: ci
    steps:
    - sh: make build
    - sh: make test
  - name: cd
    steps:
    - sh: jx step helm release

The Azure Pipelines Tasks example shows specific task definitions, while the jx example demonstrates a more Kubernetes-oriented pipeline structure with simpler, more generic steps.

Pros of Argo Workflows

• Cloud-native, Kubernetes-native workflow engine
• Supports complex workflows with DAGs and step templates
• Extensible with custom executors and plugins

Cons of Argo Workflows

• Steeper learning curve for non-Kubernetes users
• Requires Kubernetes cluster setup and management
• Less integrated with cloud-specific services compared to Azure Pipelines

Code Comparison

Argo Workflows (YAML):

apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: Workflow
spec:
  entrypoint: hello-world
  templates:
  - name: hello-world
    container:
      image: docker/whalesay
      command: [cowsay]
      args: ["Hello World"]

Azure Pipelines Tasks (YAML):

steps:
- task: Docker@2
  inputs:
    containerRegistry: 'dockerHub'
    command: 'run'
    arguments: 'docker/whalesay cowsay "Hello World"'

Both examples demonstrate running a simple container task, but Argo Workflows uses Kubernetes-native concepts, while Azure Pipelines Tasks focuses on predefined tasks and integrations with Azure services.

Pros of Spinnaker

• Multi-cloud support: Spinnaker offers native integration with multiple cloud providers, allowing for more flexible deployment options
• Advanced deployment strategies: Supports sophisticated deployment techniques like canary releases and blue/green deployments out-of-the-box
• Extensible plugin system: Allows for easy customization and addition of new features

Cons of Spinnaker

• Steeper learning curve: More complex setup and configuration compared to Azure Pipelines Tasks
• Resource-intensive: Requires more infrastructure to run and maintain
• Less integration with Microsoft ecosystem: Fewer built-in integrations with Azure services

Code Comparison

Azure Pipelines Tasks:

- task: AzureWebApp@1
  inputs:
    azureSubscription: 'Resource Manager Connection'
    appName: 'myWebApp'
    deployToSlotOrASE: true
    resourceGroupName: 'myResourceGroup'
    slotName: 'production'

Spinnaker:

{
  "type": "deployManifest",
  "account": "my-kubernetes-account",
  "cloudProvider": "kubernetes",
  "source": "text",
  "manifests": [
    {
      "apiVersion": "apps/v1",
      "kind": "Deployment",
      "metadata": {
        "name": "myapp"
      }
    }
  ]
}

Pros of Concourse

• Open-source and self-hosted, offering more control and customization
• Pipeline-as-code approach with YAML configuration for better version control
• Language-agnostic with support for various ecosystems and technologies

Cons of Concourse

• Steeper learning curve compared to Azure Pipelines Tasks
• Less integrated with cloud services and requires more setup
• Smaller ecosystem and community support

Code Comparison

Azure Pipelines Tasks (PowerShell):

- task: AzurePowerShell@5
  inputs:
    azureSubscription: 'Resource Manager Connection'
    ScriptType: 'InlineScript'
    Inline: |
      Write-Host "Hello from Azure PowerShell"

Concourse (YAML):

jobs:
- name: hello-job
  plan:
  - task: say-hello
    config:
      platform: linux
      image_resource:
        type: docker-image
        source: {repository: alpine}
      run:
        path: echo
        args: ["Hello from Concourse"]

Summary

Azure Pipelines Tasks offers a more user-friendly experience with tighter integration to Microsoft services, while Concourse provides a flexible, open-source solution with a focus on pipeline-as-code. Azure Pipelines Tasks may be better suited for teams already using Azure DevOps, while Concourse appeals to those seeking more control and customization in their CI/CD workflows.

Pros of Pipeline

• Cloud-native and Kubernetes-native design, offering better integration with containerized environments
• More flexible and extensible architecture, allowing for easier customization and plugin development
• Vendor-neutral and open-source, fostering a broader community and ecosystem

Cons of Pipeline

• Steeper learning curve due to its Kubernetes-centric approach
• Less mature ecosystem compared to Azure Pipelines Tasks, with fewer pre-built tasks available
• Requires more setup and configuration, especially for non-Kubernetes environments

Code Comparison

Pipeline (Tekton) task definition:

apiVersion: tekton.dev/v1beta1
kind: Task
metadata:
  name: hello-world
spec:
  steps:
    - name: echo
      image: ubuntu
      command:
        - echo
      args:
        - "Hello World!"

Azure Pipelines Tasks definition:

steps:
- task: Bash@3
  inputs:
    targetType: 'inline'
    script: 'echo "Hello World!"'

Both examples show a simple "Hello World" task, but Pipeline's definition is more verbose and Kubernetes-oriented, while Azure Pipelines Tasks uses a more concise, platform-specific syntax.