oh, and thanks for the tip on the readTrusted! Totally missed that one, and 
yes, load is problematic because it requires the workspace (and thus a node)

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 4:53:23 PM UTC-4, Patrick Wolf wrote:
>
> Feel free to open a JIRA ticket but I'm not a huge fan of this because it 
> is counter to the KISS principle we wanted with Declarative and breaks the 
> Blue Ocean editor.  We have discussed having multiple "stages" blocks but 
> rejected that because it quickly becomes needlessly complex without adding 
> any use case coverage. IMO, having multiple "stages" makes much more sense 
> than having multiple "pipelines" or else you will have to recreate all 
> agent, environment, libraries, options, parameters etc for each pipeline 
> and that leads to wanting those sections being DRY as well and Declarative 
> pretty much falls apart completely.
>
> BTW, It is already possible to have multiple 'pipeline' closures in a 
> single Jenkinsfile but they will be treated as parts of a whole Pipeline 
> and this cannot be used in the editor.  Because the Jenkinsfile is treated 
> as one continuous Pipeline anything outside of the pipeline closures is 
> interpreted as Scripted Pipeline. This means you can use 'if' blocks around 
> the separate 'pipeline' blocks instead of using 'load' if you choose but 
> keeping them in separate files makes maintenance easier, I think.
>
> if (BRANCH_NAME.startsWith("develop")) {
>     pipeline { .... }
> } 
>
>
> Also, it's worth noting that 'readTrusted' probably works better than 
> 'load' because this takes the committer into account and it doesn't require 
> a workspace.
>
>
> https://jenkins.io/doc/pipeline/steps/workflow-multibranch/#code-readtrusted-code-read-trusted-file-from-scm
>
> As for DRY stages there are several ways to accomplish this with Pipeline.
>
> 1. Shared Library and Resources - This is the preferred method of creating 
> DRY routines
>
> You create a global variable that has all of the steps you want (with 
> appropriate variable replacement for environment variables). You could have 
> a build.groovy global variable in the /vars directory that does all of your 
> build steps. Then the steps in your stage can be single line.
>
> Alternatively, you can store shell scripts in the /resources of your 
> shared library and run those in your steps without having to duplicate 
> anything:
>
> https://gist.github.com/HRMPW/92231e7b2344f20d9cc9d5f2eb778a54
>
> 2. You can define your steps directly in the Jenkinsfile at the top level 
> either as strings or methods and simply call that method from with each 
> pipeline.
>
> 3. You can define your steps in a configuration file as a property or yaml 
> and load those files using the Pipeline utility steps plugin. 
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Pipeline+Utility+Steps+Plugin
>
> To sum up, I think having different stages is worth discussing (it is not 
> going to be implemented in the short term) but there are already many 
> existing ways to make Pipelines DRY.
>
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 8:43:49 AM UTC-7, Kenneth Brooks wrote:
>>
>> TL;DR up front:
>> *As a user, I want to have a pipeline that performs specific pipeline 
>> stages based on the branch. Recommendation: Put the when{} condition 
>> outside the pipeline{} tag.*
>> *As a user, I want to declare my stages but have the implementation be 
>> separate so that I can reuse them in multiple pipelines*. 
>>
>> Currently the Declarative syntax has the ability to perform a stage 
>> conditionally using 'when' but not a whole pipeline.
>> This leads to making the pipeline fairly inflexible and much harder to 
>> read thru.
>>
>> Take for example:
>>
>> pipeline {
>>
>>    stages {
>>      stage('Build') {
>>        when { branch "develop || master || feature"} // no the real syntax, 
>> i know
>>        steps { /* do some build stuff */ }
>>      }
>>
>>      stage('Scan') {
>>        when { branch "master"}
>>        steps { /* run static code analysis or other code scanning */}
>>      }
>>
>>      stage('Pull Request Build') {
>>        when { branch "PR-*"}
>>        steps { /* do a merge build stuff */ }
>>      }
>>
>>      stage('Dev Deploy') {
>>        when { branch "develop || master"}
>>        steps { /* deploy to dev */ }
>>      }
>>
>>      stage('Pull Request Deploy') {
>>        when { branch "PR-*"}
>>        steps { /* deploy to special PR sandbox */}
>>      }
>>   }
>> }
>>
>>
>> In this simple example, the following will happen, but it is extremely hard 
>> to follow.
>>
>> Feature -> Build
>> Master -> Build, Scan, Dev Deploy
>> Develop -> Build, Dev Deploy
>> Pull Request -> Pull Request Build, Pull Request Deploy
>>
>> I would suggest we allow the when to be placed at the pipeline level 
>> somehow.args
>>
>> pipeline('master') { // Just for naming
>>   when { branch "master" }
>>   stages {
>>     stage('Build'){
>>       steps { /* do some build stuff */ }
>>     }
>>     stage('Scan'){
>>       steps { /* run static code analysis or other code scanning */}
>>     }
>>     stage('Dev Deploy'){
>>       steps { /* deploy to dev */ }
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> pipeline('develop') { // Just for naming
>>   when { branch "develop" }
>>   stages {
>>     stage('Build'){
>>       steps { /* do some build stuff */ }
>>     }
>>     stage('Dev Deploy'){
>>       steps { /* deploy to dev */ }
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> pipeline('pull request') { // Just for naming
>>   when { branch "PR-*" }
>>   stages {
>>     stage('Pull Request Build') {
>>       steps { /* do a merge build stuff */ }
>>     }
>>     stage('Pull Request Deploy') {
>>       steps { /* deploy to special PR sandbox */}
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> pipeline('feature') { // Just for naming
>>   when { branch != "master || PR-* || develop" } // just do a build for any 
>> 'other' branches, which would then include developer feature branches
>>   stages {
>>     stage('Build') {
>>       steps { /* do some build stuff */ }
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>>
>>
>> That, to me, is much cleaner. It is very easy to see exactly what each 
>> pipeline is doing.
>> This brings one downside. The stage is repeated.
>> stage('Build') and stage('Dev Deploy') are the same impl, but I have to 
>> write them 2 times.
>> I could create a global library, but then that has 2 other downsides. It is 
>> no longer declarative syntax in the global library, the global library is 
>> loaded external. I have to now go to a whole other file to see that 
>> implementation.
>>   
>> To keep things DRY I would also like to then see the stages treated as a 
>> definition and and implementation.
>> Define the stages external to the pipeline, but pull them into each pipeline.
>>
>> This can optionally be done (like you'll see on the Pull Request stages).
>>
>> Here is what I believe the combination of the two would look like:
>>
>>
>> pipeline('master') { // Just for naming
>>   when { branch "master" }
>>   stages {
>>     stage('Build')
>>     stage('Scan')
>>     stage('Dev Deploy')
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> pipeline('develop') { // Just for naming
>>   when { branch "develop" }
>>     stages {
>>     stage('Build')
>>     stage('Dev Deploy')
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> pipeline('pull request') { // Just for naming
>>   when { branch "PR-*" }
>>   stages {
>>     stage('Pull Request Build') {
>>       steps { /* do a merge build stuff */ }
>>     }
>>     stage('Pull Request Deploy') {
>>       steps { /* deploy to special PR sandbox */}
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> pipeline('feature') { // Just for naming
>>   when { branch != "master || PR-* || develop" } // just do a build for any 
>> 'other' branches, which would then include developer feature branches
>>   stages {
>>     stage('Build')
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> /* Stage definitions below */
>> stage('Build'){
>>   steps { /* do some build stuff */ }
>> }
>>
>> stage('Scan'){
>>   steps { /* run static code analysis or other code scanning */}
>> }
>>
>> stage('Dev Deploy'){
>>   steps { /* deploy to dev */ }
>> }
>>
>>
>> Is there a way to do this with the current declarative syntax?
>>
>> If not, what is the best way to get this into the declarative syntax? Open 
>> jira enhancement requests?
>>
>>
>> What we've resorted to in the mean time (which still doesn't solve the DRY 
>> part) is to have a Jenkinsfile that does the if logic and then loads a 
>> specific pipeline (which has its own demons because the load evals the file 
>> immediately and is holding onto a heavyweight executor the whole time).
>>
>>
>> if (env.BRANCH_NAME.startsWith("develop")) {
>>     load 'develop-pipeline.groovy'
>> } else if (env.BRANCH_NAME.startsWith("master")) {
>>     load 'master-pipeline.groovy'
>> } else if (env.BRANCH_NAME.startsWith("PR-")) {
>>     load 'pull-request-pipeline.groovy'
>> } else {
>>     load 'feature-pipeline.groovy'
>> }
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/caa3d201-2615-42f6-bd6b-97326472c353%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to