pipeline icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
pipeline copied to clipboard

Propagate params in pipelines

Open chitrangpatel opened this issue 1 year ago • 3 comments

Prior to this, we allowed parameter propagation in an inlined pipelinerun. However, within a pipeline, we requrie a verbose spec. This was an oversight as indicated in https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/7901. This PR fixes that issue by updating the validation logic in the webhook.

Fixes https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/7901.

Changes

Submitter Checklist

As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:

  • [ ] Has Docs if any changes are user facing, including updates to minimum requirements e.g. Kubernetes version bumps
  • [x] Has Tests included if any functionality added or changed
  • [x] pre-commit Passed
  • [x] Follows the commit message standard
  • [x] Meets the Tekton contributor standards (including functionality, content, code)
  • [x] Has a kind label. You can add one by adding a comment on this PR that contains /kind <type>. Valid types are bug, cleanup, design, documentation, feature, flake, misc, question, tep
  • [x] Release notes block below has been updated with any user facing changes (API changes, bug fixes, changes requiring upgrade notices or deprecation warnings). See some examples of good release notes.
  • [ ] Release notes contains the string "action required" if the change requires additional action from users switching to the new release

Release Notes

Enable propagating params in Pipelines.

/kind bug

chitrangpatel avatar May 06 '24 15:05 chitrangpatel

Thanks for the release-note! Shall we also add the changes to somewhere https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/blob/main/docs/pipelines.md#specifying-parameters?

JeromeJu avatar May 07 '24 15:05 JeromeJu

Thanks for the release-note! Shall we also add the changes to somewhere https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/blob/main/docs/pipelines.md#specifying-parameters?

Done. PTAL again 🙏 Thanks!

chitrangpatel avatar May 10 '24 15:05 chitrangpatel

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-alpha-integration-tests

chitrangpatel avatar May 13 '24 16:05 chitrangpatel

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df

chitrangpatel avatar May 13 '24 16:05 chitrangpatel

@chitrangpatel: The specified target(s) for /test were not found. The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

  • /test pull-tekton-pipeline-alpha-integration-tests
  • /test pull-tekton-pipeline-beta-integration-tests
  • /test pull-tekton-pipeline-build-tests
  • /test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests
  • /test pull-tekton-pipeline-unit-tests

The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:

  • /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage

Use /test all to run all jobs.

In response to this:

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

tekton-robot avatar May 13 '24 16:05 tekton-robot

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JeromeJu

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

tekton-robot avatar May 14 '24 15:05 tekton-robot

On second thought - do we need an integration test for this?

JeromeJu avatar May 14 '24 15:05 JeromeJu

On second thought - do we need an integration test for this?

I threw in an example test for this. If that's not ok, I can work on an integration test too. The trick is that it needs us to apply a pipeline separately on the cluster. The web hook was the one stopping its admission. I already added unit tests for that. The example test also allows us to test the web hook admission more easily. It also provides a nice example :)

The controller logic has not changed at all I think so the status and everything else remains the same. And that is already tested by the current e2e test for propagated params.

chitrangpatel avatar May 14 '24 15:05 chitrangpatel

I tend to agree with the issue #7901 to be an extension of the capability of the existing API.

While this PR generally lgtm, shall we also update the TEP0107 to reflect so?

Happy to do that!

chitrangpatel avatar May 14 '24 15:05 chitrangpatel

/hold

cc @afrittoli I put a hold so that we can all be on the same page here. Let's discuss it on the issue or in the API WG on Monday or offline.

chitrangpatel avatar May 15 '24 18:05 chitrangpatel

/hold cancel Synced offline with @afrittoli! We are all on the same page now that this is an oversight and should be fixed.

chitrangpatel avatar May 16 '24 14:05 chitrangpatel

Thanks, this looks good! Could you add a "negative" test to see that propagation on a referenced task is not allowed?

Done! PTAL!

chitrangpatel avatar May 16 '24 17:05 chitrangpatel