Details
-
Type:
Improvement
-
Status: Resolved (View Workflow)
-
Priority:
Minor
-
Resolution: Won't Fix
-
Component/s: pipeline
-
Labels:None
-
Similar Issues:
Description
Currently requires you to specify mapping: [file: file], which is awkward and redundant. Would prefer to have a single String-valued parameter with a list of things to unarchive to the same paths, like archive allows.
Attachments
Issue Links
- is related to
-
JENKINS-26942 Easy to way to copy workspace files
-
- Resolved
-
Activity
Prefer unstashing.
Code changed in jenkins
User: Jesse Glick
Path:
basic-steps/src/main/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/steps/ArtifactUnarchiverStep.java
basic-steps/src/main/resources/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/steps/ArtifactUnarchiverStep/config.jelly
http://jenkins-ci.org/commit/workflow-plugin/32e72ec33840aa8bd322b029972327956786565f
Log:
JENKINS-26134 Deprecate unarchive.
Is unarchive actually deprecated, or just 'advanced'?
We use a single node to build and artifact a bunch of configurations of a very large project, and they are individually unarchived and tested on other nodes. We also want them to be available as artifacts, so I'd rather not have to stash and artifact them if unarchive goes away.
David McFarland
added a comment - Is unarchive actually deprecated, or just 'advanced'?
We use a single node to build and artifact a bunch of configurations of a very large project, and they are individually unarchived and tested on other nodes. We also want them to be available as artifacts, so I'd rather not have to stash and artifact them if unarchive goes away. Code changed in jenkins
User: Jesse Glick
Path:
basic-steps/src/main/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/steps/ArtifactUnarchiverStep.java
basic-steps/src/main/resources/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/steps/ArtifactUnarchiverStep/config.jelly
http://jenkins-ci.org/commit/workflow-basic-steps-plugin/de5ee75cb0c656eb433743a312d42bd6d488c31c
Log:
JENKINS-26134 Deprecate unarchive.
Originally-Committed-As: 32e72ec33840aa8bd322b029972327956786565f
David McFarland has a good point. 'unarchive' is useful when you do want to archive things permanently. Both stashing and archiving things seems like a pain. unstash does not replace unarchive completely, as the former deals with temporary data, while the latter deals with data you want to keep permanently.
I'm in the same boat here (deprecated vs. advanced)... an earlier stage created some RPMs, and I archived them for posterity, but now I need them when I am running my tests. They definitely have different use cases.
Aaron D. Marasco
added a comment - I'm in the same boat here (deprecated vs. advanced)... an earlier stage created some RPMs, and I archived them for posterity, but now I need them when I am running my tests. They definitely have different use cases. As pointed out, (un)stash and (un)archive satisfy different requirements – passing information intra-job and inter-job respectively.
In my case, I need to unarchive a stats file from the last successful build to perform some analysis. In addition, in future I will need to unarchive the output of other projects which represent dependencies.
If
JENKINS-26942were implemented, this step would be used a lot less I think.