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

Skip check for runner architecture when item has arch="any" #3276

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jnohlgard
Copy link

Allow using the special value "any" for the pipeline target platform architecture to bypass the checks for runner architecture when scheduling runs.

Use case: I have two servers, one amd64, one arm64, each with their own Drone runner instance connected to my Drone server. Some pipelines have no architecture dependent parts, for example scripts, as long as there is a docker image with the correct architecture that the runner can use.

If this is merged it will need a paragraph in the docs somewhere in the section about pipeline platform, but I didn't find the right place to edit that yet.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Oct 19, 2022

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@jnohlgard
Copy link
Author

jnohlgard commented Oct 20, 2022

needs an update to drone-yaml to avoid linting errors when starting a pipeline with arch=any

https://github.com/jnohlgard/drone-yaml/tree/arch-any

drone/drone-yaml@master...jnohlgard:drone-yaml:arch-any

@colin-nolan
Copy link

Does anyone know what needs to be done to get this merged? The repo referenced by jnohlgard (https://github.com/drone/drone-yaml) is archived so presumably that doesn't need to be updated?

@hitesharinga hitesharinga changed the base branch from master to drone October 4, 2023 02:46
@bot2-harness
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR has been automatically closed due to inactivity.

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.

None yet

4 participants