docs: add more explicit language in the Pipelines in Pipelines docs #8767
Conversation
tekton-robot
added
the
release-note-none
tekton-robot
added
the
size/XS
|
/kind documentation |
tekton-robot
added
the
kind/documentation
|
CC @vdemeester |
tekton-robot
added
the
approved
|
As a side note, @vdemeester we should probably modify the build, unit tests, and e2e test CI to only run if there are code changes... |
|
@aThorp96 that sounds good, let's do it. I agree that for documentation checks we don't need the builds and all running. |
|
this change was also added in this commit, good find @aThorp96 |
|
/approve cancel |
| > :seedling: **Pipelines in Pipelines is an [alpha](additional-configs.md#alpha-features) feature.** | ||
| > The `enable-api-fields` feature flag must be set to `"alpha"` to specify `pipelineRef` or `pipelineSpec` in a `pipelineTask`. | ||
| > This feature is in Preview Only mode and not yet supported/implemented. | ||
| > :seedling: **Pipelines in Pipelines not yet [alpha](additional-configs.md#alpha-features) feature.** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@aThorp96 not sure if this is right, the PR that I mentioned earlier shows that pipelines in pipelines is an alpha feature, I see that you can reference a PIpeline in a Pipeline, this is the validation code with the Alpha API feature flag check https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/pull/7055/files#diff-78ff878240189b20e0ef82f2912c93c0b3c7b445865e04fa9b98aab851be6130R252-R283
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The API was extended to accept the schema, but it has no effect. This is also not currently listed under the list of alpha features. Both "Preview Only" and "alpha" to me implied that the logic and API is not stabilized yet, but I'm not sure if there are any formal definitions of what qualifies a feature as alpha in Tekton.
I want to make sure it's clear to users "you can reference a pipeline from a pipeline and there will be no error but literally nothing will happen", but I'm happy to reword my suggestion to better reflect the feature state if there's a more accurate stage. Maybe pre-alpha? Do you have any suggestion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok that clarifies it for me as well, I think then it's ok to go with your changes. Think we are good for now.
cc @twoGiants
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think its properly worded. I checked it out couple of days ago.
I am working on this feature and we will have something workable soon 🤞 😸 .
|
update: this feature (pipelines in pipelines) is pre alpha as mentioned by Andrew in the previous comment as we only have a schema currently, not the implementation. I think it makes sense for this doc change to go through. Makes things clearer about pipelines in pipelines state of dev. cc @vdemeester |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: twoGiants, vdemeester The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/lgtm |
Changes
Add more explicit language in the Pipelines in Pipelines docs to make it clear that the feature does not currently work, even with the alpha api fields enabled.
Submitter Checklist
As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:
/kind <type>. Valid types are bug, cleanup, design, documentation, feature, flake, misc, question, tepRelease Notes