Skip to content
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

Support Output Variables for Offline Drop #4423

Closed
zentron opened this issue Mar 27, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@zentron
Copy link

commented Mar 27, 2018

A highly voted UserVoice request (324 votes) is to provide the same support for output variables for offline drops as exists for standard deployments.

Although the execution environment is somewhat different one approach has been suggested that sounds viable.

  1. Intercept the output stream from each calamari step
  2. Look for any output variable services messages
  3. Decode the values and put them into an in-memory hashtable
  4. When the next calamari step runs, take this hashtable and pass the variables in. This can be done with a new variables parameter that just takes a raw base64 encoded JSON representation that is combined inside calamari with the variables obtained through the standard variable files.
@zentron

This comment has been minimized.

@zentron zentron added this to the 2018.3.8 milestone Mar 27, 2018
@zentron zentron self-assigned this Mar 27, 2018
@zentron zentron closed this Mar 27, 2018
@warrenrumak

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 28, 2018

Yeah! This makes me super happy. I'll try it out.

@zentron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Mar 29, 2018

One limitation is that given how variables are replaced at the time they are written the #{} template format will not work, you will currently need to use the $OctopusParameters[] format to ensure that they pick up the required values

@warrenrumak

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 15, 2018

So I tried it. So far so good.... but is there a specific reason why the Receive-Output function calls Write-Host $_ instead of just passing through the input, i.e. Write-Output $_ ?

I'm asking because this is effectively a behaviour change from prior to 2018.3.8....

@zentron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Apr 17, 2018

Was there a reason? Does oversight count? A fix will be provided in the next release to use Write-Output instead
#4490

@lock

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Nov 23, 2018

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. If you think you've found a related issue, please contact our support team so we can triage your issue, and make sure it's handled appropriately.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 23, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.