4 ms·
I wish I didn't have to circumvent the UI with a strategy like this. Part of the reason I like CI/CD tools is the visualization factor - I can create specific s
by Timon3 3y ago
I wish I didn't have to circumvent the UI with a strategy like this. Part of the reason I like CI/CD tools is the visualization factor - I can create specific steps, see which step is currently active during execution, and only care for the output of a specific step during debugging.
A platform with support for visual control from the scripts (implemented as no-ops during local execution) would be perfect.
- truculent 3y agoIf you split your scripts into small tasks (i.e. one task per script), and call each one from your GA yaml, you would seem to have the best of both?
- Timon3 3y agoThat still makes running it a bit annoying, since you have to call each script in order. You could of course create a script that covers this, but that's duplication that can drift apart. I guess you could generate the script from your YAML or use a linter or something, but it all feels a bit annoying. It would be awesome to e.g. just call a command like "gh-success" or "gh-failure" to manually indicate the success/failure, maybe with an optional ID to prevent accidental double calls etc.