Normally the pipeline is triggered by push. There is the possibility to configure an 'on pull request' webhook, but how to connect it with a pipeline and disable or reconfigure the default 'Pipelines' webhook which triggers on push?
This has since been implemented as a feature configurable in bitbucket-pipelines.yml: https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucket/configure-bitbucket-pipelines-yml-792298910.html#Configurebitbucket-pipelines.yml-ci_pull-requests
So the idea here is that instead of running your pipeline on every push you run it on every PR creation?
Is it not more convenient to build and test your code ASAP?
Update: I have funnelled the feedback about the expense of up to date deploys back to the Bitbucket Pipelines team.
Hi Marian,
At the moment it is not possible to trigger a pipeline on a pull request being created. However, pipelines run on the source branch will be displayed along with the pull request. If this is something you would like in the product please create a feature request at https://bitbucket.org/site/master/ telling us what you'd like in this feature.
It would be, but when we start having to pay for minutes to build, I think I will want this feature too. That way I could setup pipelines to only run tests on the master branch, and if anyone creates a pull request to the master branch, those also get run through pipelines. This might help save some minutes.
yes, you are right, it is more convenient to test code ASAP but for a small private or open source project you quickly run out of your 50 minutes if you build on every push.
totally agree with you. Just for info, there is a cache feature now that should save some seconds on each pipeline run.
Yeah, I would love this feature. The ideal workflow in my mind is to have the build pass as a requirement before merging the Pull Request. This keeps your deployment branches clean. After the PR is merged, the current feature set is nice to watch master/development branches and deploy them as changes are made (ie PRs are merged).
We also want to have this feature and came up with a workaround outlined here: https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/13438/add-specific-pipelines-configuration-for#comment-40276332
I needed to trigger bitbucket pipeline for every created pull requests. As this is not available by default, I've managed to do it with a simple zapier zap, here is the tutorial :https://medium.com/@kyann/how-to-launch-a-bitbucket-pipeline-on-pull-request-creation-aka-launch-sonar-on-pull-request-efc7e93679fc
Exactly @Jan Steinke. Developers on any team should be encouraged to push their branches to remote often, even before raising a PR, without worrying about consuming build minutes on unnecessary builds. They can add [skip ci] to commit messages, but will often forget to do so.
+1 for this feature, and exactly for the reasons stated above.
If someone has made a feature request, could you please post the link, so we can upvote it?
Actually, never mind that - a search reveals no current issue open on the subject, so I created one:
https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/15771/run-pipelines-on-pr
please vote it if you'd like this feature.
Thanks.
as a workaround, you can push an empty commit
Hi Brain, will it be triggered when a PR is merged/closed?
No; it will be triggered when a PR is created or updated (the source branch of the PR is pushed to).
When it is merged, the relevant pipelines on the target branch will run, if they are configured.
For example, I configured my pipelines to run tests on pull requests, and on the master branch. So when I merge a pull request to master, the tests run on master because of the configuration of master, not because of the configuration of the pull requests.
good to know, thanks!
I deploy PR's to an environment for integration tests, and looking for a way to clean up resources when a PR has gone...
Hi,
Is it possible to rerun the pipeline of the merge when the pull-request is updated? We want to require at least two successful builds without failed builds. One for the last commit itself, and one for the potential merge.
What I've observed is that a change in the pull request will reset the "successful build counter" and will initiate a new build on the new commit (we have it setup to build on each commit), but will not trigger a new build on the potential merge. Is there currently a way to achieve that?
Thanks,
Fred
Nevermind, it seems that I mislabeled the branch that I want this to affect in my yml.
By changing:
pull-requests: develop:
to
pull-requests: '**':
It now works. I can't seem to make it work for a specific branch. Is there a special format?
I tried:
developorigin/develop*develop*develop**/develop
And none of these work.
Is it possible to skip pipelines, or to prevent it to not failed when there is a merge conflict on the pull request
I have a Jenkins pipeline to increase the version number of my artifacts automatically, what it does is:
My question is: Is there some way to indicate BitBucket if a Pull Request comes from a particular user (in this case Jenkins) to auto approve immediately or not request any approver to merge?
Hello, based on documentation:
pull-requests - A special pipeline that only runs on pull requests initiated from within your repo. It merges the destination branch into your working branch before it runs. Pull requests from a forked repository don't trigger the pipeline. If the merge fails, the pipeline stops.
Is there any way so I can override merging my working branch with the destination branch ? I know it might be odd but I want to merge my working branch with a different branch than the destination.Thank you.
It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
