Ok, maybe I will need to add better wording , but the idea stays the same unlike in many ci systems ( GitHub/gitlab/etc pipeline code is general purpose programming language not YAML ), if you read further jobs/tasks you will see
IN DSCI CI artifacts are easy, every job can create a file inside ~/artifacts directory and all subsequent will see it. If any job remove a file for ~/artifacts all the subsequent jobs won't see it.
So artifacts works as a pipeline data buffer
Very easy. No need for explicit links via YAML/whatever ...
The example contradicts itself in such a short blog post (the example creates and reads ~/artifacts.txt, the prose claims repeatedly artifacts are anything in ~/artifacts/).
This is also an even worse design than path artifacts in Gitlab CI.
> The idea is that - Git server + YAMLess pipelines for CICD (...)
The first thing I see in the introduction [0] is a YAML configuration. What is YAMLess supposed to mean? I assumed it was "no YAML".
[0] https://deadsimpleci.sparrowhub.io/doc/introduction
Yep - tiny , simple structured YAML on the top ( only to list jobs technically) everything else is general purpose programming languages
But then your claim is immediately false. It's confusing at best, a loss of trust with the reader at worst.
Ok, maybe I will need to add better wording , but the idea stays the same unlike in many ci systems ( GitHub/gitlab/etc pipeline code is general purpose programming language not YAML ), if you read further jobs/tasks you will see
IN DSCI CI artifacts are easy, every job can create a file inside ~/artifacts directory and all subsequent will see it. If any job remove a file for ~/artifacts all the subsequent jobs won't see it.
So artifacts works as a pipeline data buffer
Very easy. No need for explicit links via YAML/whatever ...
The example contradicts itself in such a short blog post (the example creates and reads ~/artifacts.txt, the prose claims repeatedly artifacts are anything in ~/artifacts/).
This is also an even worse design than path artifacts in Gitlab CI.
Oh. It’s just a typo. Why it’s worse ?
It's a typo that carried over to the second code example of trying to read the file too? Is the sample code completely untested?