On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:59 AM Thomas Weißschuh <[email protected]> wrote: > * (If it can, but it is called without a block, {@link StepContext#hasBody} > will be false.) > > Also official steps like "stage" accept both forms.
Ah forgot that this was introduced for the `stage` step trick. My advice had actually been to keep `stage` as is and introduce block-scoped `label`. Best to not use this facility and keep each step either exclusively block-scoped or non-block-scoped. > The plugin is *very* generic. > (it only looks at the build as a series of nodes/steps, without any > assumptions about their content) So what is it doing, exactly? This smells like something that (if needed at all) should be built into the syntax, not done as a `Step`. > What do you think of having steps (optionally, decided by the step author) > available as something like global variables? > This would allow plugin authors to provide this functionality > (for which they currently do implement GlobalVariables) > without the disadvantages and without a tight dependency on Cps. Even if there were not a literal compile-and-link dependency on `workflow-cps` the semantics would be inherently tied to details of that model. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr0EfadQmmB40SdGTdE0b65btY%3D7bqSZW1S5u%2B-VtJoY4Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
