You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently Pipelines as Code provides a build status to the git provider. The name/label of this build status is always what's set as the application-name (default is "Pipelines as Code CI").
This label isn't very informative as it is--especially if there are multiple different PipelineRuns defined in the repository. In some git providers such as Bitbucket Server, the only information available in the interface is the application name and build status--as such, there's no way to know which Pipeline is running without logging into OpenShift to see the status of the pipeline.
See example:
Proposal
Enable the build label to be defined per-PipelineRun or per-Pipeline.
This could be defined in the annotations or maybe labels, something like:
This is for Bitbucket Server. It shows the application name "Pipelines as Code CI". But this name doesn't give any indication as to which pipeline is running. Below is an example of how the interface looks in Bitbucket Server:
Issue
Currently Pipelines as Code provides a build status to the git provider. The name/label of this build status is always what's set as the
application-name
(default is "Pipelines as Code CI").This label isn't very informative as it is--especially if there are multiple different PipelineRuns defined in the repository. In some git providers such as Bitbucket Server, the only information available in the interface is the application name and build status--as such, there's no way to know which Pipeline is running without logging into OpenShift to see the status of the pipeline.
See example:
Proposal
Enable the build label to be defined per-PipelineRun or per-Pipeline.
This could be defined in the
annotations
or maybelabels
, something like:If not specified in the PipelineRun, of course, it would default to what's defined in the ConfigMap.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: