I like that second example! I forget I have the full power of groovy behind me with the Build Flow
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Schalk Cronjé <[email protected]> wrote: > guard/rescue will work, but is not semantically correct. WHen I see a flow > like that it tells me that jobC is supposed to clean up the mess caused by > failed job. > > Using ignore would be better. Potentially like below > > parallel( > { ignore(UNSTABLE) { > build('jobA') > } > }, > { ignore(UNSTABLE) { > build('jobB') > } > } > ) > > build('jobC') > > However, if wrapping each individual job in a ignore block and the same > parameters tare passed o jobA & jobB, you could always write it as > > parallel ( > > ['jobA','jobB'].collect { job -> > return { > ignore(UNSTABLE) { > build ( it, MYPARAM1 : 'VALUE1' ) > } > } > } > ) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- Website: http://earl-of-code.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
