-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Passing parameters and resource Pipeline -> Task #1484
Comments
I tend to like that idea.
Or we could let it like this, aka if the name do not match, be explicit about it. The only disadvantage I can see, might be with really common parameter names. Something like - name: deploy2
runAfter: [cleanup]
taskRef:
name: install-tekton-release
params:
- name: projectName
value: my-project-$(params.projectName)
- name: package
value: $(params.namespace)/$(params.projectName) /kind feature |
@vdemeester Good point - and probably implicit is better than explicit. This might be something to be solved at the UI level (Web UI or CLI) - i.e. the UI could offer default matching or parameters and resources at authoring time, and let the author fix things manually were needed. I think I'll keep this one in the backlog, it may be something to consider when we get to Pipeline authoring tools. |
wow this is a cool idea - i actually really like it, it reminds me of a lot of what i used to like about c# development and the associated tools; at least in the shop i was working in, tools could help you out an awful lot b/c all the class and variable naming was super standardized |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. /close Send feedback to tektoncd/plumbing. |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. /lifecycle stale Send feedback to tektoncd/plumbing. |
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. /lifecycle rotten Send feedback to tektoncd/plumbing. |
@tekton-robot: Closing this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
@afrittoli: Reopened this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. /lifecycle stale Send feedback to tektoncd/plumbing. |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. /lifecycle stale Send feedback to tektoncd/plumbing. |
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. /lifecycle rotten Send feedback to tektoncd/plumbing. |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. /close Send feedback to tektoncd/plumbing. |
@tekton-robot: Closing this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/reopen yet to be addressed |
@jerop: Reopened this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Expected Behavior
Writing a pipeline does not add a lot of overhead to the single Tasks
Actual Behavior
Today writing a pipeline that includes many parameters and resources results in a rather verbose YAML. It has the advantage that is very explicit - but to the point of being redundant.
I think a thinner syntax on the parameters and resource passing would make the process of writing pipelines simpler.
The proposal is to implicitly pass pipeline parameters and resources with a matching name into the task parameter and resources. So instead of having:
We would be able to write:
Since task names are not standardized, it may be that a pipeline has to pass the same parameter to two or more different tasks where the parameter has a different name. To cover this case we could add an extra field to the pipeline parameter to list aliases.
This approach has the main disadvantage of being more implicit, but it still has the advantage of highlighting which params / resources are not provided by the pipeline - if any.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: