Ah yes, that help seems a little misleading with the wording "May take a *mapping* parameter ..."
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 8:02:36 PM UTC-8, John D. Ament wrote: > > Ok, so I think I got something. If I use "**/*" on the unarchive step, I > get everything. Not quite what I expected, but it works. > > > > On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 1:20:16 PM UTC-5, John D. Ament wrote: >> >> Creating the archive doesn't seem to be an issue. >> >> Its the unarchive step where things don't quite work for me. If I read >> this info, it implies that the mapping step is not required. >> https://github.com/jenkinsci/workflow-plugin/blob/master/basic-steps/src/main/resources/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/steps/ArtifactUnarchiverStep/config.jelly#L31 >> >> However, if mapping isn't set, an exception gets thrown: >> https://github.com/jenkinsci/workflow-plugin/blob/master/basic-steps/src/main/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/steps/ArtifactUnarchiverStepExecution.java#L39 >> >> And in fact, the expanding of the archive is keyed off of this mapping >> config. >> https://github.com/jenkinsci/workflow-plugin/blob/master/basic-steps/src/main/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/steps/ArtifactUnarchiverStepExecution.java#L42 >> >> It looks like it may be straight forward enough to add an unarchive all >> option, and if that works I may try that out instead. >> >> John >> >> On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 12:55:30 PM UTC-5, Brian Ray wrote: >>> >>> Isn't the "get everything" Ant regex something like **** or ***/**? >>> >>> If you continue looking at workflow, also check out the *stash* and >>> *unstash >>> *steps. Similar purpose and syntax but more applicable to intermediate >>> stages where you don't need to retain the artifacts. You can also refer to >>> the batch of *stash*ed artifacts by an arbitrary logical name for >>> downstream *unstash*ing. >>> >>> On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 6:53:56 AM UTC-8, John D. Ament wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I definitely thought about workflow. It looks promising. >>>> >>>> One question though - I can't seem to archive/unarchive everything. It >>>> looks like to use unarchiver you need to know the paths that will be >>>> exposed, and instead I'd like to just get everything, including class >>>> files. Is that possible? >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 1:49:01 AM UTC-5, Baptiste Mathus >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what you call a pipeline job, do you mean 'workflow job'? or >>>>> do you use the term in a generic way and actually have many (freestyle) >>>>> jobs you're coordinating? >>>>> >>>>> If the latter, then it really seems like a use case for a workflow job >>>>> (using the workflow plugin). Using/archiving etc. artifacts and being >>>>> able >>>>> to share the ws during the build is gonna be both more natural and more >>>>> maintainable (and more robust because of the durability). >>>>> >>>>> My 2 cents >>>>> Le 24 déc. 2015 3:46 AM, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a >>>>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I was wondering if anyone had any best practices or tips to share on >>>>>> have a common workspace for a pipeline job. >>>>>> >>>>>> Basically, I have a series of pipeline jobs and I want them to have a >>>>>> single workspace for the duration of the job chain. I compile the >>>>>> artifacts once, running unit tests, followed by a suite of integration >>>>>> and >>>>>> BDD tests. It's a fairly complicated build, including generating an app >>>>>> server and minifying a lot of javascript for our UI. Some of these >>>>>> steps >>>>>> are pretty long, and in total we have 4 pipeline steps. I figure by >>>>>> doing >>>>>> this once, I would cut out about 40 minutes of rebuild time in my >>>>>> pipeline. >>>>>> >>>>>> One idea I had was to use the clone workspace plugin to copy them, >>>>>> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Clone+Workspace+SCM+Plugin, >>>>>> but it seems like this isn't pipeline sensitive since each step in the >>>>>> pipeline should be building the same commit. I also thought about >>>>>> copying >>>>>> artifacts, but it seems like its a huge number of artifacts. Could I >>>>>> build >>>>>> a zip with the contents? >>>>>> >>>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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]. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/3c25d084-56c8-4242-a6e0-a0b347ea0af8%40googlegroups.com >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/3c25d084-56c8-4242-a6e0-a0b347ea0af8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/a1495051-adbc-4900-904c-1b8331fedfb3%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
