milindcq/gh-84: pipelineID resolution fix for multi/mixed pipeline stages

[milindcq]

Overview

Github Issue: #84

Summary (required always)

While rendering a nested pipeline If one of the pipeline stage is a nested pipeline and another refers to an existing pipeline. The spinnaker pipeline id for the existing pipeline stage is not resolved. This is due to faulty check that skips the id resolution due to this check (

shore/pkg/backend/spinnaker/backend.go

Line 751 in 567fcf5

if !hasChildPipelines && mapContainsKey(innerStage, "application") && mapContainsKey(innerStage, "pipeline") && reflect.TypeOf(innerStage["pipeline"]).Kind() == reflect.String {

))

Notes

Unit-tests result:

unit-test-results.txt

Before (failed pipeline id resolution):

After the PR the pipeline ID was resolved successfully:

Checklist

• My pull request title follows the format <username>/<gh-issue-#number>:<short-description>
• My code passes existing unit tests
• My code follows the code style set for the project
• I have added at least one reviewer for this PR

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot: Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. We ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.

If you are contributing on behalf of your employer you must fill out our Corporate Contributor License Agreement which can be found here.
If you are contributing on behalf of yourself you must agree to our Individual Contributor License Agreement by reviewing this document and signing it or by replying below with a comment containing the following text:

---

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

---

Milind Mistry seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account.
_{You can retrigger this bot by commenting recheck in this Pull Request}

[dkirillov]

@milindcq Thank you for eagerly trying to contribute!

While the change itself is small and seemingly good - the more logistical aspect of the PR isn't.

Please read the CONTRIBUTE.md doc for how to contribute.

The PR needs an issue, so please open one and describe the problem in it - and link it in the description of the PR and the title (as in the PR's checklist).

Please also show that the unit tests are passing and that you have tried using the change against the problem that you've encountered (or a similar scenario) as well as any other scenarios that help prove that the change works and does not break anything.

Because this is open source - everyone is setting an example and precedent for one another, and will be held accountably equally - to ensure quality is maintained.

[milindcq]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[milindcq]

recheck

[dkirillov]

Thank you for the bug fix!