Closed schewara closed 1 year ago
if we add such docker backend options imho these should be server side configuration options not per pipeline (prefix and labels)
linking #278
I would say that's are agent backend options ...
or at least some of the proposals
@6543, @lafriks Completely agree with your comments, some options might be better suited for backend options, while others might be a better fit for the pipeline config.
I just wanted to provide an end-user view and would leave it to the experts to decide where the implementation would fit best, as they have a better overview of all the internals.
Clear and concise description of the problem
Currently the usage of images is very limited, which requires one to implement some workarounds like using custom images/plugins to play along with woodpecker and sometimes existing infrastructure requirements.
Therefore I would like to suggest to add support for the following options to not have to re-invent the weel every time when one wants to integrate a new tool/image which does not match the current limitations.
0_338859503931012122_step_0
and defining a name or a static prefix would make it clearer which container to look for in case of a hanging job which needs to be investigated, or for monitoring exclusion.This list is only my "Top 3" with potentially more options to follow, but these would already cover more then 90% of all my use cases.
Suggested solution
The ability to define specific options for images like:
or as
backend_options
Alternative
Currently the only alternative I see, are custom images or plugins tailered to work with woodpecker.
Additional context
278
Validations
next
version already [https://woodpecker-ci.org/faq#which-version-of-woodpecker-should-i-use]