-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support "hooks" in build tasks #136
Comments
That could be a good starting point. I assume it will be quite simple at the beginning, by just running an entrypoint bash script, e.g. |
Correct. If we wanted to, we could even auto-detect such scripts instead of having many parameters. Not sure which option is better ... the params at least would provide clear documentation. |
I'd rather have them explicitly via parameters |
Closes #136. I assume we do not need this for NPM and Gradle, because those allow to customize what is executed as a test (e.g. by adding a dependency to the `test` task in `build.gradle`).
Closes #136. I assume we do not need this for NPM and Gradle, because those allow to customize what is executed as a test (e.g. by adding a dependency to the `test` task in `build.gradle`).
Currently there is no control over what gets executed in builder tasks (such as
ods-build-go
). While this is by design (to prevent customisations that are not predictable) it is probably too restrictive. For example, given we have a solution for #135, users might want to run database migrations before running the integration test suite. With the current design, this would not be possible with the official task and a custom task would be needed.One option could be to provide more parameters that allow to run scripts before/after certain steps in the task, such as before running tests (e.g.
params.script-before-tests
) and after running tests (e.g.params.script-after-tests
). While this would allow users to run arbitrary things in the task, it would not allow them to bypass the default behaviour without doing crazy stuff.Thoughts?
FYI @felipecruz91 @renedupont
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: