-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 154
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add document for using task migrations #1862
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add document for using task migrations #1862
Conversation
STONEBLD-2829
Historically, task maintainers write `MIGRATION.md` to notify users what changes | ||
have to be made to the pipeline. This mechanism is not deprecated. Besides | ||
writing the file, it is also recommended to write a migration so that the | ||
updates can be applied to user pipelines automatically. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would also be good to mention how the migration files get applied - i.e. link to the migration tool and the configuration that enables it in our Renovate deployment (Mintmaker)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This sounds like a developer guide. How about write it down after the improvement is done? What do you think we start a new document separately for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking we can just add a link to the migration tool, e.g.
...so that the updates can be applied to user pipelines automatically (by the pipeline-migration-tool)
(.spec.tasks[] | select(.name == "task-a") | .params) += | ||
{"name": "pipelinerun-name", "value": "\$(context.pipelineRun.name)"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we make this example idempotent? (I.e. only add the param if it's not already there)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's already idempotent. Line 257 checks that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah ok, I missed that. Maybe add a short comment about that above the if
? It's not immediately obvious that that's why the check is there
We should probably keep this open until the migration tool is ready for use? |
STONEBLD-2829