[JIRA] (JENKINS-40170) Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Title: Message Title Jesse Glick commented on JENKINS-40170 Re: Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps Ethan Trewhitt yes this would probably be a useful refactoring. Related to PR 78. Your example would better use withRun however. Nickolas Fox your comment makes no sense that I can see. Your script is already valid. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.1.7#71011-sha1:2526d7c) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Issues" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[JIRA] (JENKINS-40170) Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Title: Message Title
Nickolas Fox commented on JENKINS-40170
Re: Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
This snippet works fine to me, so there's one step outside docker environment just to checkout scm changes and the following ones are running inside docker container.
node (dockerNode) {
def dockerEnv = docker.image("some-our-internal-image")
stage("Prepare environment"){
setupEnvironment()
checkout scm
}
dockerEnv.inside{
stage('Run API Tests')
setupDependencies()
startServices()
runAPITests()
}
stage('Run UI Tests'){
setupUIDependencies()
runUITests()
}
stage("Run E2E Tests"){
setupE2EEnvironment()
setupXServerDependencies()
setupUIDependencies()
setupProductionLikeEnvironmentDependencies()
runE2ETests()
}
}
}
Add Comment
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.1.7#71011-sha1:2526d7c)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[JIRA] (JENKINS-40170) Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Title: Message Title
Ethan Trewhitt updated an issue
Jenkins / JENKINS-40170
Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Change By:
Ethan Trewhitt
Image.inside() performs a number of tasks that are useful in many cases. Unfortunately it also performs one task that cannot directly be performed with any other Groovy step: actually running code in the image. The execution step should be separated from the other steps performed by inside() so that users can control what happens. If this means that inside() remains the same, while a new method is created that _only_ executes code within the running container, that's fine. It's already a bit strange that "inside" is attached to the "Image" object, since the code is actually being executed inside a container instantiated from that image.May I suggest adding a some functiosn functions to the "container" object so that we can do this? I would envision this process to look something like this:{code}node {def image = docker.image('metatest')def container = image.run()container.execInside() {step("Get Username") {sh "whoami"}step("Report Success") {sh "echo Success!"}}container.stop()container.remove()}{code}Note that I have also separated the _stop_ and _rm_ steps for the container. I see no reason why they should be combined in the stop() method. Why not mirror the Docker commands with the same name?
Add Comment
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
[JIRA] (JENKINS-40170) Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Title: Message Title
Ethan Trewhitt updated an issue
Jenkins / JENKINS-40170
Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Change By:
Ethan Trewhitt
Image.inside() performs a number of tasks that are useful in many cases. Unfortunately it also performs one task that cannot directly be performed with any other Groovy step: actually running code in the image. The execution step should be separated from the other steps performed by inside() so that users can control what happens. If this means that inside() remains the same, while a new method is created that _only_ executes code within the running container, that's fine. It's already a bit strange that "inside" is attached to the "Image" object, since the code is actually being executed inside a container instantiated from that image.May I suggest adding a some functiosn to the "container" object so that we can do this? I would envision this process to look something like this: {code} node {def image = docker.image('metatest')def container = image.run()container.execInside() {step("Get Username") {sh "whoami"}step("Report Success") {sh "echo Success!"}}container.stop()container.remove()} {code} Note that I have also separated the _stop_ and _rm_ steps for the container. I see no reason why they should be combined in the stop() method. Why not mirror the Docker commands with the same name?
Add Comment
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
[JIRA] (JENKINS-40170) Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Title: Message Title
Ethan Trewhitt updated an issue
Jenkins / JENKINS-40170
Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Change By:
Ethan Trewhitt
Image.inside() performs a number of tasks that are useful in many cases. Unfortunately it also performs one task that cannot directly be performed with any other Groovy step: actually running code in the image. The execution step should be separated from the other steps performed by inside() so that users can control what happens. If this means that inside() remains the same, while a new method is created that _only_ executes code within the running container, that's fine. It's already a bit strange that "inside" is attached to the "Image" object, since the code is actually being executed inside a container instantiated from that image.May I suggest adding a some functiosn to the "container" object so that we can do this? I would envision this process to look something like this: {{ node {def image = docker.image('metatest')def container = image.run()container.execInside() { step("Get Username") { sh "whoami" }step("Report Success") { sh "echo Success!"} } container.stop()container.remove()} }} Note that I have also separated the _stop_ and _rm_ steps for the container. I see no reason why they should be combined in the stop() method. Why not mirror the Docker commands with the same name?
Add Comment
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.1.7#71011-sha1:2526d7c)
[JIRA] (JENKINS-40170) Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Title: Message Title
Ethan Trewhitt created an issue
Jenkins / JENKINS-40170
Separate execution functionality of image.inside() into distinct steps
Issue Type:
New Feature
Assignee:
Unassigned
Components:
docker-workflow-plugin
Created:
2016/Dec/01 9:37 PM
Priority:
Minor
Reporter:
Ethan Trewhitt
Image.inside() performs a number of tasks that are useful in many cases. Unfortunately it also performs one task that cannot directly be performed with any other Groovy step: actually running code in the image. The execution step should be separated from the other steps performed by inside() so that users can control what happens. If this means that inside() remains the same, while a new method is created that only executes code within the running container, that's fine. It's already a bit strange that "inside" is attached to the "Image" object, since the code is actually being executed inside a container instantiated from that image. May I suggest adding a some functiosn to the "container" object so that we can do this? I would envision this process to look something like this: {{ node { def image = docker.image('metatest') def container = image.run() container.execInside() { sh "whoami" sh "echo Success!" } container.stop() container.remove() } }} Note that I have also separated the stop and rm steps for the container. I see no reason why they should be combined in the stop() method. Why not mirror the Docker commands with the same name?
