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

Add throttle groups (sequential execution) within phases #59

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

blt04
Copy link

@blt04 blt04 commented Jan 6, 2015

Throttle groups allow you to execute specific jobs within a phase in serial. For example, if you have jobs A, B, and C, the default behavior executes them in parallel, for example:

A....
B......
C...

If we assign the same "throttle group" (a string) to jobs A and C, they will execute in series (C will not start until A finishes). This would look like:

A....
B......
     C...

Throttle groups add another level of customization to MultiJobs. They support variable expansion and treat the "false" string as no throttle group - so they can be easily attached to boolean build parameters.

Throttle groups allow you to execute specific jobs within a phase in
serial.  For example, if you have jobs A, B, and C, the default behavior
executes them in parallel, for example:

    A....
    B......
    C...

If we assign the same "throttle group" (a string) to jobs A and C, they
will execute in series (C will not start until A finishes).  This would
look like:

   A....
   B......
        C...

Throttle groups add another level of customization to MultiJobs.  They
support variable expansion and treat the "false" string as no throttle
group - so they can be easily attached to boolean build parameters.
@jenkinsadmin
Copy link
Member

Thank you for a pull request! Please check this document for how the Jenkins project handles pull requests

@calebmayeux
Copy link

Really excited about this new feature, as it'll add a powerful and much needed functionality to multijobs.

I foolishly only checked open Jira tickets and didn't check pull requests before starting to implement this, and ended up implementing scarily similar code almost 3 weeks after you submitted this pull request. Haven't tested your changes, but reviewing the code it looks good.

Thanks! Hope they merge this in for the next release.

@harcher81
Copy link
Contributor

I like, but why this is not already merge?

I will fix some deadlocks and the merge will be difficult.

@misery
Copy link

misery commented Aug 17, 2015

Any progress here?

@rhass-r7
Copy link

rhass-r7 commented Nov 2, 2015

This may need to be rebased/merged with the current head of master.

@hagzag
Copy link
Member

hagzag commented Nov 12, 2015

IMO, This is a bit against the Multijob logic, if you want jobs to be built in parallel you should move them to a separate phase ...

@hagzag
Copy link
Member

hagzag commented Aug 8, 2016

@itaior @cohencil I think this PR is long gone code wise + it's against our logic no ?

@itaior
Copy link
Contributor

itaior commented Aug 9, 2016

I think PR #92 achieve the same behavior , So it's needed. let compare and decide

@hagzag
Copy link
Member

hagzag commented Aug 9, 2016

sorry @blt04 this was implemented in PR 92.

@hagzag hagzag closed this Aug 9, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants