You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.
Level 1: Seed
25 / 150 points
1 badge earned
Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!
What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.
Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!
Join now to unlock these features and more
Sometimes we got some slow running builds, that are built before PR can be merged. In the case of a fast forward merge, the git hash will be the same for next build started from master.
Normally this is not a problem, but in rare cases I would really like to bypass a few build steps if they have already been performed.
Any luck? The only thing I can think of is to keep an external key value db to keep track of this.
Hi @Jan Nylund,
According to one of our Bamboo developers, an implementation to solve this issue would require a deep rework at Bamboo side. He shared also that it would be also hard to achieve this if you intend to work on a custom plugin for that task.
Hey @Daniel Santos
I know this is a corner case, but technically, it's pretty straight forward, all I need is a key value storage.
- After successful test and build, I store git hash + build params + timestamp.
- Before build, I check the key value storage for git hash + build params + timestamp. If there is a recent success I bypass the step.
My use case for this is a corner case, and related to long running tests that bamboo is just watching. For now I think the most reasonable solution is that I build it outside of Bamboo and check the status with curl or similar. (short timeout so in case it's not available it just defaults to build).
I could probably build a Bamboo plugin that provides a rest api endpoint in Bamboo master for this key value storage and then check that each time a build is triggered... (I assume)
When you say bypass you mean that no build would be run for the commits already processed in a branch, right?
The master branch, in this case, would miss part of the builds and would have all of them only when a new commit (different hash) is built if I understood you correctly.
Do you want to open a feature request for this and share your thoughts on our issue tracker?
This is how you can do if you want to share your thoughts there: