Skip to content
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

Define a concept of Artifact Visibility #15344

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jkoritzinsky
Copy link
Member

Asset Visibility

As part of building the VMR, we've found that we need to produce assets in multiple jobs that we used to produce in only one job. We have talked about doing asset selection through a list of jobs or asset name patterns. This works when we're only producing the assets that we want to publish.

However, we've discovered that in the VMR, we also need to build some additional packages that we never want to ship that we are effectively forced to name like a shipping package (in particular, we need to build a crossgen2 and ilc for the build host machine). These host-machine packages aren't assets we want to ship as they are built using LKG assets and assets that aren't targeting our "portable" build setup.

To handle these cases, we'd have to be very careful with a priority list of verticals as it would need to consider the machines we build on (so macOS x64 and macOS arm64 ordering would have to be ordered such that the primary vertical matches our build machine).

We looked at different artifact types and determined we have 3 visibilities, separate from Shipping/NonShipping:

  • Vertical: Used within a VMR vertical, not published in the merged manifest. Not allowed in non-VMR builds.
  • Internal: Used within a single AzDo pipeline run. Published from a job up to AzDO, but excluded from BAR and darc publishing. Good for cross-job and cross-BuildPass -only assets.
  • External (default): Regular publishing.

To double check:

…vertical builds.

Don't publish artifacts with non-External visibility
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant