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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

RFC: notification resources #28

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

RFC: notification resources #28

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
53efe77
initial notification resources rfc
vito May 21, 2019
7ac6403
add notifying on state change as a motivation
vito Feb 7, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
37 changes: 37 additions & 0 deletions 028-notification-resources/proposal.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
# Notification Resources

This proposal uses the [generalized resource interface](../024-generalized-resources/proposal.md) to show how the interface would be implemented and interpreted by Concourse to support "notification resources", which are composed with another resource to emit notifications for build status.

## Motivation

* Support notifications in a way that doesn't pollute pipeline config and UI: [concourse/concourse#1052](https://github.com/concourse/concourse/issues/1052), [concourse/rfcs#10](https://github.com/concourse/rfcs/issues/10)
* Support notifying on state change only (i.e. don't spam on 'fail', 'fail', 'fail').

## Proposal

> Describe your proposal.
>
> Things that can help: clearly defining terms, providing example content,
> pseudocode, etc.
>
> Feel free to mention key implementation concerns.

## Open Questions

> Raise any concerns here for things you aren't sure about yet.

## Answered Questions

> If there were any major concerns that have already (or eventually, through
> the RFC process) reached consensus, it can still help to include them along
> with their resolution, if it's otherwise unclear.
>
> This can be especially useful for RFCs that have taken a long time and there
> were some subtle yet important details to get right.
>
> This may very well be empty if the proposal is simple enough.

## New Implications

> What is the impact of this change, outside of the change itself? How might it
> change peoples' workflows today, good or bad?