For our deployment process we have certain steps that are skipped in certain environments because those environments don’t contain those components or servers. When starting a deploy manually via the UI those steps are shown are being manually skipped which is fine. However when kicking off the deploy via octo.exe when skipping those steps they are shown as warnings, so on the dashboard we get the yellow warning icon on all our deploys where these steps were skipped. Is there anyway to suppress this? When end users see this on the dashboard it causes unnecessary concern. I’ve attached some screen shots that might help explain the situation a little better. Thanks for the help.
octo.docx (144 KB)
Thanks for reaching out. So the warning only shows up only when using Octo.exe. I’m gonna have to get back to you on this one next week, i’d like to discuss with the team if this is as design or just an inconsistency.
It makes sense that the warning icon doesn’t show up when you do it from the UI, because on the UI you already saw the warning before you clicked on “Deploy now”. So its assumed you agreed to continue, despite the warning. But from Octo.exe you dont have the chance to see that warning before you start the process, hence the warning icon is shown at the end of the deployment.
Let me discuss this with the team on Tuesday (there’s a holiday in Australia on monday) and get back to you.
That said, why do you that environment set as scope of that step? If the environment doesnt have machines on it with the specified roles, then there is no point on having that environment as scope of the step.
Hi Dalmiro, Thanks for the quick response. That is correct the warning only displays on the dashboard when using Octo.exe.
We don’t use environment scopes because we add new environments often and we’d have to update that scope on every step whenever we added a new environment. We have a lot of steps and it would get hard to maintain quickly.
Just wondering if you’ve had a chance to discuss this with the team yet?
I’ve created a github issue to open the discussion.
I’m not sure its gonna be taken as a bug, but its worth the try.