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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 2, 2020. It is now read-only.
Do you think pipeline name is necessary? I’d probably prefer just the job name in order to keep it more concise and also to avoid different status checks between master/maintenance-release branch pipelines (since they’d typically represent the same status).
I'm not married to any particular form. As an intermediate position, you could allow me to provide the variables and have them substituted (the slack alert resource does this, for instance).
Thinking more, this would break the check behavior which expects to be able to look for specific statuses. Since those build arguments aren't available except for out, the independent in/check behavior would become unusable. If we go that route, this resource no longer can fully represent the state of a GitHub status like it was originally intended.
I think there's probably still a way to do it cleanly... but need a bit more thought before significantly changing the semantics of this resource.
For example, something like
ci/$BUILD_PIPELINE_NAME/$BUILD_JOB_NAME
.This would make it easier to reuse the resource across multiple jobs, while retaining the distinction of builds via context in Github.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: