Closed
Description
openedon Jan 7, 2020
I wanted to follow up on this comment from #20 (comment).
Hmm, I need to think more about dependsOn. I thought you could "reach into" the matrix and depend on a single resulting job, but if not, then no reason to introduce that here. (In fact, this would likely be implemented as syntactic sugar on top of matrix, so we'd get the exact same level of support.)
I don't see a way to "reach into" the matrix and depend on a single resulting job. If there is a way, I'd love to hear it. If not, adding that syntactic sugar for this would be helpful.
Example pipeline:
stages:
- stage: A
jobs:
- job: Build
strategy:
matrix:
Release:
Configuration: Release
Debug:
Configuration: Debug
steps:
- script: |
echo JobName = $(System.JobName)
echo JobDisplayName = $(System.JobDisplayName)
- job: Test
strategy:
matrix:
Release:
Configuration: Release
Debug:
Configuration: Debug
# These 'dependsOn' options give a syntax error.
# dependsOn: "BuildRelease"
# dependsOn: "Build Release"
# dependsOn: "Build.Release"
# dependsOn: "A Build Release"
# dependsOn: "Build $(System.JobName)"
# dependsOn: "Build $(System.JobDisplayName)"
steps:
- script: |
echo JobName = $(System.JobName)
echo JobDisplayName = $(System.JobDisplayName)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment