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

feat(ecs): Add support for task definition artifacts #3016

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 5, 2019

Conversation

allisaurus
Copy link
Contributor

Add support for deploying an ECS Task Definition as an artifact.

This feature allows Task Definition attributes, including multiple containers, to be defined in an artifact (JSON file) and used in conjunction with pipeline images and other server group settings to deploy to ECS.

@allisaurus
Copy link
Contributor Author

Associated PRs:
spinnaker/deck#7162
spinnaker/clouddriver#3825


private static class TaskDefinitionArtifact {
@Nullable public String artifactId
@Nullable public Artifact artifact
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What if these are both null? What is the behavior if the task artifact resolver cant find an artifact?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like the resolver will continue try to map it into an object and potentially return a null object. I found that elsewhere a null check is done after calling it, I can add a similar check for this.

if (description.fromContext) {
if (givenStage.execution.type == ExecutionType.ORCHESTRATION) {
// Use image from specific "find image from tags" stage
def imageStage = givenStage.findAncestor({
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Merge conflict fail: I think this is supposed to be "ancestorsWithParentPipelines.find" now based on the diff in line 52

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm seems to be ok now? Not sure if something upstream changed to permit that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants