This isn't supported at this time - I don't really get your use-case why can't you run those jobs in parallel ? If they actually depend on each other sequentially, why not stop the flow when first one fails ?
2014/1/10 silver <[email protected]> > Nicolas, > > Do you have a recommendation on how I can accomplish the goal at hand? > Otherwise, I see no other option but to try Marc's groovy script. > > Thanks. > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 2:51 AM, nicolas de loof <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I don't recommend such a fully programmatic approach, build-flow is > designed as a DSL, admittedly not constrained to just supported keywords > (because I didn't know how to do this when I started this plugin) but > clearly not supposed to be used to create such a groovy script. > > > 2014/1/10 Marc MacIntyre <[email protected]> > >> >> You are overthinking it :) The trick is to grab the return value from >> the build() call and check the result of that, then explicitly set the >> failure state of the buildflow. >> >> This is what I'm doing; it's more solution than you need, but it solves >> your problem. >> >> This buildflow takes a map of jobs and the pass criteria, and fires >> everything off in parallel. If you want to retry on failures, that's >> supported, and/or you can start several in parallel and pass if some >> portion of them pass. We use job names as the map key, so if you want to >> start multiple runs of a particular job with different params, you'll need >> to modify the script somewhat. >> >> def createBuildClosure(String jn, Map args, int retryCount = 0) { >> // This indirection is needed to force a clone of args, so it's out >> of scope and gets >> // re-bound to the closure each time - otherwise jenkins will >> deduplicate our builds. >> def ags = args.clone() >> ags.put("_dedup", java.lang.System.nanoTime()) >> if (retryCount) { >> return { retry(retryCount) {build(ags, jn)} } >> } else { >> return {build(ags, jn)} >> } >> } >> >> def startParallelRuns(Map buildsToRun) { >> def m = [:] >> buildsToRun.each { >> jobName, params -> >> def maxFailures = params.get("maxFailures", 0) >> def retryCount = params.get("retryCount", 0) >> println "Running "+jobName+" "+params.count+" times (max >> failures "+maxFailures+")" >> for (int idx = 0; idx < params.count; idx++) { >> m.put(jobName+"_"+idx, createBuildClosure(jobName, >> params.args, retryCount)) >> } >> } >> >> ignore(FAILURE) { >> join = parallel(m) >> } >> >> results = [:] >> // process the results by job name >> buildsToRun.each { >> jobName, params -> >> def passcount = 0 >> def maxFailures = params.get("maxFailures", 0) >> for (int idx = 0; idx < params.count; idx++) { >> run = join[jobName+"_"+idx] >> if (run.result == SUCCESS) { passcount += 1} >> } >> result = (params.count - passcount) > maxFailures ? FAILURE : >> SUCCESS >> println ""+result+": "+jobName+": >> "+passcount+"/"+params.count+" passed (Max failures: "+maxFailures+")" >> results[jobName] = result >> } >> return results >> } >> >> build_params = params.clone() >> >> // Modify your build params here >> build_params.put('UPSTREAM_JOB', build.project.name) >> >> buildsToRun = [ >> job1: [count: 1, maxFailures: 0, args: build_params, retryCount: 2], >> job2: [count: 1, maxFailures: 0, args: build_params], >> job3: [count: 1, maxFailures: 0, args: build_params], >> jobX: [count: 2, maxFailures: 0, args: build_params], >> jobY: [count: 1, maxFailures: 0, args: build_params], >> ] >> >> >> results = startParallelRuns(buildsToRun) >> build.state.result = results.any { job, result -> result == FAILURE} ? >> FAILURE : SUCCESS >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:22 PM, silver <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Sorry for any confusion. The line: ”println(“There were >>> “+FailuresPresent+" test(s) that failed”);" is outside of the if statement >>> resulting in the example output at the end of this message. >>> >>> On Jan 9, 2014, at 9:55 PM, silver <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > When I run jobs in parallel, the Build Flow fails or passes as I’d >>> expect. Example: >>> > >>> > parallel ( >>> > { build(job1) }, >>> > { build(job2) }, >>> > { build(job3) }, >>> > ) >>> > >>> > All of the jobs are started and if they all pass, the Build Flow >>> passes. If one fails, the Build Flow fails. >>> > >>> > What I’d like to do is to run jobs sequentially, ignoring a failure >>> *for that moment* but at the end, fail or pass the Build Flow as a whole. >>> Using “ignore(FAILURE)" doesn’t give me what I want because it will ignore >>> a failure and pass the Build Flow regardless: >>> > >>> > ignore(FAILURE) {build(job1)} >>> > ignore(FAILURE) {build(job2)} >>> > ignore(FAILURE) {build(job3)} >>> > >>> > If they all fail, the Build Flow still passes because failures are >>> ignored. But I really need ALL of the jobs to run no matter the outcome of >>> the other jobs, and the Build Flow to pass/fail, depending on each outcome. >>> > >>> > Therefore, I have tried something like this (which I thought I got to >>> actually work at one point but I can’t get it to work again!?! The closest >>> I can get is explained further down.): >>> > >>> > FailuresPresent = 0; >>> > try { >>> > build(job1) >>> > }catch(e) { >>> > FailuresPresent = FailuresPresent++; >>> > } >>> > try { >>> > build(job2) >>> > }catch(e) { >>> > FailuresPresent = FailuresPresent++; >>> > } >>> > try { >>> > build(job3) >>> > }catch(e) { >>> > FailuresPresent = FailuresPresent++; >>> > } >>> > if ( FailuresPresent>0) { >>> > println(“There were “+FailuresPresent+" test(s) that failed”); >>> > throw new Exception("FAILED!”); >>> > }else { >>> > println "Tests PASSED!"; >>> > } >>> > >>> > But the Build Flow will still stop immediately after a failed job (I >>> don’t see my println at the end). If I use an ignore(FAILURE) wrapper, >>> then the “catch” is ignored and the Build Flow passes. >>> > >>> > I am not using guard/rescue because I don’t need the FailuresPresent >>> to increment every time, only when there is a failure (or do I? >>> Guard/Rescue is like try/finally, not a try/catch.) >>> > >>> > None of my jobs are dependent on another, I just want them all grouped >>> together and to run sequentially in a single Build Flow if possible. >>> Running them in parallel maxes out my resources (not Jenkins but my >>> Selenium hub). >>> > >>> > If I wrap the above jobs in a parallel statement, it seems to gives >>> the appearance of it finishing to completion (my print statement at the end >>> is seen) but the Build Flow doesn’t run the other jobs. >>> > >>> > This is the output with the entire try/catch/builds wrapped in a >>> parallel statement (notice job2 and job3 aren’t run but my println at the >>> end is seen: >>> > >>> > parallel { >>> > Schedule job job1 >>> > Build job1 #34 started >>> > job1 #34 completed : UNSTABLE >>> > } >>> > There were 0 test(s) that failed >>> > Tests PASSED! >>> > >>> > Suggestions? I hope I’m over-thinking this. >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Marc MacIntyre >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Jenkins Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
