access execution status of any task in finally #3390

pritidesai · 2020-10-15T07:32:46Z

Changes

Introducing a variable which can be used to access the execution status of any pipelineTask in a pipeline. This can be used in any finally task (and limited to finally tasks for the first iteration).

Use $(tasks.<pipelineTask>.status) as param value which resolves to the status, one of, Succeeded, Failed, and None.

E.g.:

    finally:
    - name: finaltask
      params:
        - name: task1Status
          value: "$(tasks.task1.status)"
      taskSpec:
        params:
          - name: task1Status
        steps:
          - image: ubuntu
            name: print-task-status
            script: |
              if [ $(params.task1Status) == "Failed" ]
              then
                echo "Task1 has failed, now process this failure"
              fi

Partially Closes #1020
Implements TEP #0028

Submitter Checklist

These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:

Includes tests (if functionality changed/added)
Includes docs (if user facing)
Commit messages follow commit message best practices
Release notes block has been filled in or deleted (only if no user facing changes)

See the contribution guide for more details.

Double check this list of stuff that's easy to miss:

If you are adding a new binary/image to the cmd dir, please update
the release Task to build and release this image.

Reviewer Notes

If API changes are included, additive changes must be approved by at least two OWNERS and backwards incompatible changes must be approved by more than 50% of the OWNERS, and they must first be added in a backwards compatible way.

Release Notes

Introducing a variable $(tasks.<taskName>.status) to access execution status of any non finally pipelineTask in finally.

/kind feature

tekton-robot · 2020-10-15T07:35:21Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/apply.go	91.5%	92.3%	0.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunresolution.go	86.8%	82.3%	-4.5

examples/v1beta1/pipelineruns/pipelinerun-task-execution-status.yaml

tekton-robot · 2020-10-15T19:10:18Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/apply.go	91.5%	92.3%	0.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go	69.9%	72.5%	2.5

tekton-robot · 2020-10-15T19:16:44Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/apply.go	91.5%	92.3%	0.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go	69.9%	72.5%	2.5

bobcatfish · 2020-10-15T20:04:19Z

hey @pritidesai !! I'm very excited to see this moving forward :D

Do you think this might be worth a TEP to explore the problem and the alternatives a bit?

For example the mapping between the "execution states" and "status" you're proposing (#1020 (comment)) is interesting - it's also different from what you currently see in the status field of an executing TaskRun/PipelineRun so I think it might be worth contrasting this with some different approaches, e.g.:

Exposing the entire status of a Run as metadata, using something like json path to extract values (i think we've looked at this before and it's pretty verbose but i think it's worth considering)
Exposing just the execution status information, but mirroring the structure in the actual status of the run (e.g. instead of context.pipelineRun.Tasks.Foo, context.pipelineRun.Tasks.status.conditions <-- we could return either Unknown, True, False, `` or make them slightly more readable Running, `Succeeded`, `Failed`, `None` **edited - i had thought `.Succeeded` was the complete path but now i realize this is a value!

Looking at the docs on the execution status it feels like this proposal is making the trying to make the "reason" field available to users, and treating that as the overall status (and mixing 'skipped' in as well)

Unknown: no information available on that pipelineTask execution

This one in particular is confusing: "unknown" as a condition status currently means "running" but we are using "unknown" to mean "not set" (i think?)

tekton-robot · 2020-10-15T20:46:12Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/apply.go	91.5%	92.3%	0.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go	69.9%	72.5%	2.5

bobcatfish · 2020-10-15T21:19:10Z

One more thing that might be worth exploring: some of these statuses won't have meaning or be available. For example:

Failed - only available in Finally Tasks (all other Tasks will stop executing)
TaskRunCancelled - i think that even finally tasks are not executed if a task is cancelled, so i dont think realistically that this value will ever be present?

For all of these, the values will only be available to tasks that execute during or after the task that is trying to use the values

pritidesai · 2020-10-15T23:35:47Z

hey @pritidesai !! I'm very excited to see this moving forward :D

🎉 🎉 🎉

Do you think this might be worth a TEP to explore the problem and the alternatives a bit?

Yup, definitely 👍

For example the mapping between the "execution states" and "status" you're proposing (#1020 (comment)) is interesting - it's also different from what you currently see in the status field of an executing TaskRun/PipelineRun so I think it might be worth contrasting this with some different approaches, e.g.:

The use cases we have here are:

UC1: finally task must be able to check the execution state of any DAG task.
UC2: A DAG task must be able to check if other DAG task was skipped. The reason to include only skipped here, like you mentioned in the comment above ⬆️ , if any of the DAG tasks is failed, pipeline starts executing finally tasks and does not schedule rest of the DAG tasks. I need to confirm the cancelled scenario.

The proposed list of states here are derived based on ResolvedPipelineTask.TaskRun.Status.GetCondition(apis.ConditionSucceeded) i.e. Succeeded ConditionType in addition to Status and Reason. The same methods that we use to get the execution queue in pipelinerun.go. The state is also derived based on pipelineRun.Status.SkippedTasks for tasks which does not have any taskRun associated with them and to distinguish them from not yet scheduled tasks.

Succeeded: a pipelineTask was successful, a respective pod was created and completed successfully. Condition status is set to true.
Failed: a pipelineTask failed, a respective pod was created but exited with error. Condition status is set to false and have exhausted all the retries.
TaskRunCancelled: taskRun for that pipelineTask is cancelled by the user. Condition status is set to false and the reason is set to TaskRunCancelled.
Skipped: a pipelineTask is skipped because of the when expression or its parent was skipped.
Unknown: this is very crucial and ambiguous, this is more like none of the above. pipelineTask was not skipped but did not have any taskRun associated with it. No information on whether this task is going to be scheduled next or will be left unscheduled due to a DAG failure.

Exposing the entire status of a Run as metadata, using something like json path to extract values (i think we've looked at this before and it's pretty verbose but i think it's worth considering)

👍 This can be next in line and can enhance the existing proposal.

The existing proposal brings quick access to the state without investing into json path.

Exposing just the execution status information, but mirroring the structure in the actual status of the run (e.g. instead of context.pipelineRun.Tasks.Foo.Succeeded, context.pipelineRun.Tasks.status.conditions.Succeeded <-- we could return either Unknown, True, False, ``

context.pipelineRun.Tasks.status.conditions.Succeeded with Unknown, True, False would not bring much value since False can mean failed or cancelled which is still fine but will be difficult to capture skipped.

or make them slightly more readable Running, Succeeded, Failed, None

Definitely we can rename the states to Running, Succeeded, Failed, None making them more readable. And add Skipped?

Looking at the docs on the execution status it feels like this proposal is making the trying to make the "reason" field available to users, and treating that as the overall status (and mixing 'skipped' in as well)

Yup, so that its not hidden in None or Unknown and the core focus is access the state of a pipelineTask. the docs on the execution status is more at the pipeline level rather than at individual task level. pipelineTask has extra state (skipped) which is not applicable for a pipeline. A pipeline does not have skipped state.

Unknown: no information available on that pipelineTask execution

This one in particular is confusing: "unknown" as a condition status currently means "running" but we are using "unknown" to mean "not set" (i think?)

It means there is absolutely no way to determine what is the status at that point in time. We could introduce Running state which is derivable but unknown could mean none of the above proposed state.

Within finally, a DAG task would have this state when one of the predecessors fails and pipeline stops executing any new DAG task.

Within DAG, this state wouldn't be returned unless a state of a child is requested even before a parent is executed or finished executing. When a parent is executing, we have no idea whats going to happen to that parent and if that child be ever scheduled/executed.

So worth a TEP 😉

pritidesai · 2020-10-16T02:58:28Z

I need to confirm the cancelled scenario.

When any DAG task is cancelled, pipeline triggers finally tasks.

pritidesai · 2020-10-16T06:16:19Z

Do you think this might be worth a TEP to explore the problem and the alternatives a bit?

tektoncd/community#234

bobcatfish · 2020-10-16T19:54:16Z

The proposed list of states here are derived based on ResolvedPipelineTask.TaskRun.Status.GetCondition(apis.ConditionSucceeded) i.e. Succeeded ConditionType in addition to Status and Reason. The same methods that we use to get the execution queue in pipelinerun.go. The state is also derived based on pipelineRun.Status.SkippedTasks for tasks which does not have any taskRun associated with them and to distinguish them from not yet scheduled tasks.

Thanks for the detailed explanation! I'm going to take my comments mostly into the TEP; in general I'm wondering if there is a simpler subset of these values we could start with initially, and maybe to keep things simpler, start with just the expected values of the Succeeded ConditionType, then we can be deliberate about adding more if needed.

context.pipelineRun.Tasks.status.conditions.Succeeded with Unknown, True, False would not bring much value since False can mean failed or cancelled which is still fine but will be difficult to capture skipped.

At the moment I don't think there's a scenario where a task is cancelled and other tasks will start to execute after that. If there is later on, we could add additional information to the variable replacement to cover it.

A pipeline does not have skipped state.

Oh yeah great point! imo this is even more reason not to include this as one of the possible values of the new field (more in my TEP comments!)

When any DAG task is cancelled, pipeline triggers finally tasks.

Oh, do you mean when a taskrun that is part of a pipelinerun is cancelled? I was thinking of when the entire PipelineRun is cancelled.

I guess I could see someone doing that but it seems like a strange scenario to support - but in the TEP it looks like "cancelled" isnt being proposed initially so maybe we can cross that bridge when we come to it :D

tekton-robot · 2020-10-28T06:58:49Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/substitution/substitution.go	43.8%	40.0%	-3.8

tekton-robot · 2020-10-28T07:05:15Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/substitution/substitution.go	43.8%	40.0%	-3.8

docs/pipelines.md

tekton-robot · 2021-01-07T23:33:53Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go	99.6%	99.6%	0.0
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	82.7%	82.8%	0.1
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go	64.1%	65.5%	1.4
pkg/substitution/substitution.go	43.8%	48.1%	4.3

pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go

tekton-robot · 2021-01-08T19:43:50Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go	99.6%	99.6%	0.0
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	82.7%	82.8%	0.1
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go	64.1%	65.5%	1.4
pkg/substitution/substitution.go	43.8%	48.1%	4.3

examples/v1beta1/pipelineruns/pipelinerun-task-execution-status.yaml

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/apply_test.go

tekton-robot · 2021-01-11T19:19:34Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sbwsg

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [sbwsg]

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

tekton-robot · 2021-01-11T22:39:23Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go	99.6%	99.6%	0.0
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	82.7%	82.8%	0.1
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go	64.1%	65.5%	1.4
pkg/substitution/substitution.go	43.8%	48.1%	4.3

afrittoli

Thank you @pritidesai !

This looks good, the only problem left that I see is the parameter variable validation, which makes the assumption that the parameter is in the format "$(var)" only.

I would prefer not checking explicitly for cancel / timeout, since that code will never be reached anyways and we have no tests for it. It should be a quick fix if you want to update the PR it can still be in v0.20.0

pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go

afrittoli · 2021-01-12T10:56:06Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go

+				s = v1beta1.TaskRunReasonSuccessful.String()
+			case t.IsFailure():
+				s = v1beta1.TaskRunReasonFailed.String()
+			case t.IsCancelled():


Cancelled is a special case of failed. IsCancelled returns true only if the condition is false (==failure) and the reason is a special one. There may be a case of tasks for which cancelled has been requested but they have not been cancelled yet, but those are not covered by the IsCancelled check, as it should be - for them we would return None.

afrittoli · 2021-01-12T11:01:52Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go

+				s = v1beta1.TaskRunReasonFailed.String()
+			case t.IsCancelled():
+				s = v1beta1.TaskRunReasonFailed.String()
+			case t.TaskRun != nil && t.TaskRun.HasTimedOut(ctx):


Timeout should be a special case of failed. A Task that has timed out is failed.

This check does not verify that the condition is set to false, only that the task is timed out, so it includes task yet not completed in the sense that the controller has not enforced the timeout yet.

I think we should only read the condition, and return false is false, true if true or none otherwise.

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate_test.go

afrittoli · 2021-01-12T11:07:44Z

pkg/substitution/substitution.go

@@ -60,6 +60,22 @@ func ValidateVariableP(value, prefix string, vars sets.String) *apis.FieldError
 	return nil
 }

+func ValidateVariablePS(value, prefix string, suffix string, vars sets.String) *apis.FieldError {


NIT: it would be nice to have a comment that describes what the function does (here and for several other functions in this module).

afrittoli · 2021-01-12T11:32:29Z

pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go

+		}
+	}
+	for _, paramValue := range paramValues {
+		if strings.HasPrefix(stripVarSubExpression(paramValue), "tasks.") && strings.HasSuffix(stripVarSubExpression(paramValue), ".status") {


NIT: we don't need to invoke stripVarSubExpression twice here.

pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go

afrittoli · 2021-01-12T14:51:57Z

pkg/substitution/substitution.go

@@ -60,6 +60,22 @@ func ValidateVariableP(value, prefix string, vars sets.String) *apis.FieldError
 	return nil
 }

+func ValidateVariablePS(value, prefix string, suffix string, vars sets.String) *apis.FieldError {
+	if vs, present := extractVariablesFromString(value, prefix); present {


Thanks @pritidesai - I do not see the check in this function - perhaps you refer to https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/pull/3390/files#diff-78ff878240189b20e0ef82f2912c93c0b3c7b445865e04fa9b98aab851be6130R321 (L321)? However that check will only work for parameters in the "$(var)" format, but not if extra text or more variables are included.

Introducing a variable which can be used to access the execution status of any pipelineTask in a pipeline. Use $(tasks.<pipelineTask>.status) as param value which contains the status, one of, Succeeded, Failed, or None.

tekton-robot · 2021-01-12T18:58:34Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go	99.6%	99.6%	0.0
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	82.0%	82.1%	0.1
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunresolution.go	92.0%	91.7%	-0.3
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunstate.go	64.1%	66.3%	2.2
pkg/substitution/substitution.go	43.8%	48.1%	4.3

pritidesai · 2021-01-12T19:33:04Z

thanks @afrittoli, I have created issue on validation as per our slack conversation and updated the checks to check for successful condition type with status true and false instead of explicitly checking for cancelled or time out. Are there any changes needed for this to make it to 0.20?

afrittoli

Thanks for all the updates and the patience!
It's great to have this new feature in Tekton :)
/lgtm

afrittoli · 2021-01-12T20:18:16Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/apply.go

@@ -87,6 +87,17 @@ func ApplyTaskResults(targets PipelineRunState, resolvedResultRefs ResolvedResul
 	}
 }

+//ApplyPipelineTaskContext replaces context variables referring to execution status with the specified status


NIT: missing space // Apply...

afrittoli · 2021-01-12T20:19:05Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunresolution.go

@@ -132,6 +132,18 @@ func (t ResolvedPipelineRunTask) IsStarted() bool {
 	return t.TaskRun != nil && t.TaskRun.Status.GetCondition(apis.ConditionSucceeded) != nil
 }

+// IsConditionStatusFalse returns true when a task has succeeded condition with status set to false
+// it includes task failed after retries are exhausted, cancelled tasks, and time outs
+func (t ResolvedPipelineRunTask) IsConditionStatusFalse() bool {


Nice, thank you!

afrittoli · 2021-01-12T20:24:41Z

pkg/substitution/substitution.go

@@ -60,6 +60,22 @@ func ValidateVariableP(value, prefix string, vars sets.String) *apis.FieldError
 	return nil
 }

+func ValidateVariablePS(value, prefix string, suffix string, vars sets.String) *apis.FieldError {
+	if vs, present := extractVariablesFromString(value, prefix); present {


I think I reasonable fix here could be to have a variation of extractVariablesFromString that returns the stripped suffix so that it could be verified.
We should follow up on this PR to had such fix to make sure the code does not break when we add support for results like @GregDritschler mentioned.

riceluxs1t · 2021-01-25T23:35:46Z

@pritidesai

$(tasks..status) How would a PipelineRun that has its Pipeline/Task specs fully inlined access these parameters? I believe for a fully inlined PipelineRun, tasks get random suffixes attached to their names.

pritidesai · 2021-01-26T04:38:47Z

@riceluxs1t please provide an example YAML if possible.

$(tasks.<pipelineTask>.status) represents execution status of a pipelineTask under tasks section and is only accessible in finally tasks. For pipelineRun with inlined pipeline/task spec, these parameters stays the same as the pipelineTask names are specified by the users and are not updated by the controller.

Here is an example of pipelineRun with inlined specification: https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/blob/master/examples/v1beta1/pipelineruns/pipelinerun-task-execution-status.yaml

I believe for a fully inlined PipelineRun, tasks get random suffixes attached to their names.

Are you seeing suffixes getting attached to pipelineTask names?

Implemented in tektoncd/pipeline#3390

tekton-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot requested review from bobcatfish and imjasonh October 15, 2020 07:32

imjasonh reviewed Oct 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

examples/v1beta1/pipelineruns/pipelinerun-task-execution-status.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from ebdb86d to 1b3a310 Compare October 15, 2020 19:07

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from 1b3a310 to a7bae2d Compare October 15, 2020 19:13

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from a7bae2d to 0fb33f4 Compare October 15, 2020 20:43

pritidesai mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2020

Adding TEP for accessing task execution status at runtime tektoncd/community#234

Merged

This was referenced Oct 21, 2020

Design and implement task results in final tasks #2557

Closed

consuming task results in finally #3242

Merged

tekton-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 27, 2020

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from 0fb33f4 to 4e8d93c Compare October 28, 2020 06:56

tekton-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 28, 2020

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from 4e8d93c to 2a4e707 Compare October 28, 2020 07:03

afrittoli reviewed Jan 7, 2021

View reviewed changes

docs/pipelines.md Show resolved Hide resolved

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from b1d7889 to 9665da2 Compare January 7, 2021 23:31

GregDritschler reviewed Jan 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipeline_validation.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from 9665da2 to a6191a0 Compare January 8, 2021 19:41

ghost approved these changes Jan 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

examples/v1beta1/pipelineruns/pipelinerun-task-execution-status.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/apply_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 11, 2021

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from a6191a0 to e70d619 Compare January 11, 2021 22:36

afrittoli reviewed Jan 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from e70d619 to 8f567fa Compare January 12, 2021 18:45

tekton-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 12, 2021

access execution status of pipelineTask

64d9689

Introducing a variable which can be used to access the execution status of any pipelineTask in a pipeline. Use $(tasks.<pipelineTask>.status) as param value which contains the status, one of, Succeeded, Failed, or None.

pritidesai force-pushed the pt-status-10-13 branch from 8f567fa to 64d9689 Compare January 12, 2021 18:55

tekton-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 12, 2021

pritidesai mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2021

context variables validation - $(tasks.dagtask.status) #3681

Closed

afrittoli reviewed Jan 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

tekton-robot assigned afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 12, 2021

tekton-robot merged commit 23b37ac into tektoncd:master Jan 12, 2021

jerop added a commit to jerop/community that referenced this pull request Jun 3, 2021

TEP-0028: Task Execution Status at Runtime - Mark as Implemented

c9f049a

Implemented in tektoncd/pipeline#3390

jerop added a commit to jerop/community that referenced this pull request Jun 3, 2021

TEP-0028: Task Execution Status at Runtime - Mark as Implemented

e2d3848

Implemented in tektoncd/pipeline#3390

jerop mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2021

TEP-0028: Task Execution Status at Runtime - Mark as Implemented tektoncd/community#451

Merged

tekton-robot pushed a commit to tektoncd/community that referenced this pull request Jun 3, 2021

TEP-0028: Task Execution Status at Runtime - Mark as Implemented

0de82f5

Implemented in tektoncd/pipeline#3390

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

access execution status of any task in finally #3390

access execution status of any task in finally #3390

pritidesai commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

bobcatfish commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

bobcatfish commented Oct 15, 2020

pritidesai commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

pritidesai commented Oct 16, 2020

pritidesai commented Oct 16, 2020

bobcatfish commented Oct 16, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 28, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 28, 2020

tekton-robot commented Jan 7, 2021

tekton-robot commented Jan 8, 2021

tekton-robot commented Jan 11, 2021

tekton-robot commented Jan 11, 2021

afrittoli left a comment

afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

tekton-robot commented Jan 12, 2021

pritidesai commented Jan 12, 2021

afrittoli left a comment

afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

afrittoli Jan 12, 2021

riceluxs1t commented Jan 25, 2021

pritidesai commented Jan 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading

access execution status of any task in finally #3390

access execution status of any task in finally #3390

Conversation

pritidesai commented Oct 15, 2020 • edited Loading

Changes

Submitter Checklist

Reviewer Notes

Release Notes

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

bobcatfish commented Oct 15, 2020 • edited Loading

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

bobcatfish commented Oct 15, 2020

pritidesai commented Oct 15, 2020 • edited Loading

pritidesai commented Oct 16, 2020

pritidesai commented Oct 16, 2020

bobcatfish commented Oct 16, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 28, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 28, 2020

tekton-robot commented Jan 7, 2021

tekton-robot commented Jan 8, 2021

tekton-robot commented Jan 11, 2021

tekton-robot commented Jan 11, 2021

afrittoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tekton-robot commented Jan 12, 2021

pritidesai commented Jan 12, 2021

afrittoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

riceluxs1t commented Jan 25, 2021

pritidesai commented Jan 26, 2021 • edited Loading

pritidesai commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

bobcatfish commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

pritidesai commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

pritidesai commented Jan 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading