[Anthill-pro] Question about job failure within workflows

[Jeff Rodgers (jerodger)]

That makes sense. I'm still trying to understand the execution model in
AHP3 and what the best way to configure tasks are. Specifically, what
are the advantages/disadvantages of breaking tasks into multiple
workflows, multiple jobs, or multiple steps in a job. For instance, I
have a Nant target, build-installer, that I want to run after a
successful build. If I create another builder in the same job, I get
continuation conditions working properly. If I create a separate job, I
don't get continuation conditions. If I add another workflow, I can kick
it off from the Originating workflow, giving me continuation (I haven't
tried that yet). 

In all three cases I want to build the installer if the build succeeds.
It shouldn't matter how my project is   structured.

Am I missing something?

Jeff Rodgers
Cisco Remote Operations Services

-----Original Message-----
From: anthill-pro-bounces at caladin.urbancode.com
[mailto:anthill-pro-bounces at caladin.urbancode.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Minick
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:13 PM
To: anthill-pro at caladin.urbancode.com
Cc: anthill-pro at caladin.urbancode.com
Subject: Re: [Anthill-pro] Question about job failure within workflows

Jeff,

That's an option. The only concern is whether the behavior should be job
dependent (in which case your suggestion works) or workflow dependent
(in which case it is inadaquate).

-- Eric

Jeff Rodgers (jerodger) wrote:

>So, why wouldn't the continuation condition for the first step in a job

>be used for whether the job will execute? Otherwise, the continuation 
>condition of the first step is useless.
>
>Jeff Rodgers
>Cisco Remote Operations Services
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: anthill-pro-bounces at caladin.urbancode.com
>[mailto:anthill-pro-bounces at caladin.urbancode.com] On Behalf Of Eric 
>Minick
>Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:17 AM
>To: anthill-pro at caladin.urbancode.com
>Subject: Re: [Anthill-pro] Question about job failure within workflows
>
>Chad,
>
>There are arguments for continueing anyway. Taking a deeper look, we 
>agree that the default behavior should be to stop the workflow. This 
>has been filed as a critical issue for 3.2. Hopefully we'll present 
>continuation conditions for jobs like we do steps, but we'll at least 
>have the stop if the last job failed in there.
>
>-- Eric
>
>Chad Loder wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:55:25AM -0700, Eric Minick wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Chad,
>>>
>>>I need to look into this. Is the problem that a job fails, and then 
>>>the next job is executed anyway?
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>That is correct. I consider this a show-stopper because status tags 
>>and
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>stamping occur on failed builds, which is really bad for obvious
>>    
>>
>reasons.
>  
>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Chad Loder wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Hi. I have noticed that when a step of a workflow fails, the next 
>>>>tasks in the workflow execute regardless. Is there a way to have the

>>>>workflow abort and fail when a step fails, rather than continuing on

>>>>and attempting all the next steps?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>	c
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>        
>>>>

_______________________________________________
Anthill-pro mailing list
Anthill-pro at lists.urbancode.com
http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill-pro