Details
-
Type:
Bug
-
Status: Closed (View Workflow)
-
Priority:
Critical
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Component/s: pipeline-model-definition-plugin
-
Labels:None
-
Similar Issues:
Description
with postBuild being a stage, this results in a confusing experience.
User is used to seeing:
A->B->C->postBuild steps
Should things fail on A, they will see:
A->postBuild
This hides the fact there are other stages that would normally be executed.
For stage view, and blue ocean, this can result in a visual report of:
A->postBuild->B (skipped) -> C (skipped)
which is very confusing.
So either postBuild steps should be rolled into the final stage that was executed (acceptable) or else if there is a failure, all subsequent stages have to be reported (but with no steps in them) so that the presentation is consistent (former is easier and clearer).
I believe James Dumay will be able to explain more.
The bottom line is by making postBuild a synthetic stage, the structure of the pipeline radically changes depending on success of failure (vs just being early terminated).
Attachments
Issue Links
- links to
Huhhhh. Interesting. I'd actually tend towards the latter (empty stages for stages that should have run but didn't due to the failed build) and preserving postBuild and notifications as synthetic stages. It's easy enough to do. In fact, I'm gonna bang out a PR implementing that now. =)