I spent all day trying do this with Declarative Pipelines and finally had to give up. It was so easy to do things like this with Scripted Pipelines, but Declarative is the way going forward. It would be nice to have this with the shared pipeline library.

Hello,

As a suggestion you can use the (not well documented) feature that loads scripts on the fly.

#!groovy
script {
    library identifier: "setup@$BRANCH_NAME", retriever: legacySCM(scm)
}
pipeline {
    stages {
        stage('Setup & Deploy') {
            steps {
                setup()
                deploy()
            }
        }
    }
}

this will load the libs from the same repository and branch you are checking out, it will go to folder /vars/ and load all .groovy files.

library identifier: "setup@$BRANCH_NAME", retriever: legacySCM(scm)

<ROOT>/
    - vars/
        - deploy.groovy
        - setup.groovy

The name of the .groovy script will become a step on pipeline, as you can see the steps setup and deploy.

setup.groovy

#!/usr/bin/env groovy
def call() {
    sh "echo 'YEAH'"
    sh "some/other/script.sh"
}

deploy.groovy

#!/usr/bin/env groovy
def call() {
    def props = readProperties file: 'environment.env'
    env.PROP_1 = props['PROP_1']

    sh "script/that/uses/PROP_1"
}

Declarative stages have become so flexible now: they can have their own options, environment, post stages, agent etc.

This makes the ability to reuse and share them even more powerful. My use case is running tests against a selection of specialised hardware, accessible by a generic build agent. In conjunction with the lockable resources plugin, the typical stage for this in the middle of a pipeline looks something like:

stage ('Run tests on kit') {
  agent { label 'local-kits' }
  options {
    lock(label: 'kit-type-1', variable: 'KIT_IP', quantity: 1)
  }
  steps {
    runTest('example-test.zip') // existing shared function to download and run previously archived binary on reserved kit
  }
  post {
    always {
      junit 'results.xml'
    }
  }
}

I use this in a ton of places, and help others include it in their pipelines. If I could replace all that (or maybe just the contents of stage { } ) with a call to a library, it would be really handy.

Hi abayer,

Is this really a duplicate of JENKINS-49135?

In PR #241, you explicitly say that you won't support the directives stage, stages, steps, etc.
and this is actually what we do want here.

With best regards,
Tom.

Hello,

This fix is marked as "Fixed but Unreleased", can someone add a pointer to the PR implementing this? Or any documentation?

Thanks

• Frank