-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 73
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
support pulumi cancel command #768
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Hi @hd-deman, thanks for opening this PR! Could you remove the changes to Also, would you be willing to add a test to validate the change? |
|
Thanks for removing the |
just a note. if you cancel pipeline it don't remove lock and break next deployments. So manual cancel action can solve this issue. |
I mean, it doesn't look like a low priority |
Any chance of getting this one merged soon? we wanted to use |
Hi @dotansimha this PR needs a few minor tweaks before we can get it in.
@hd-deman Are you willing to add a test case? I'm looking for something that provably executes the |
Also, I wanted to say I'm sorry if my comment about priority came off as rude. This is a valuable contribution that improves the quality of the Pulumi GitHub Action. I want to get as many community contributions merged as possible. As an OSS maintainer, that's my job! Not every PR comes it 100% ready to merge; sometimes, they're 75% ready, 50% ready, or 25% ready. If the contributor can't take it all the way, the maintainers have to make up the difference, and there's only so much time in the day. Sometimes I have to choose between working on a 25% done, high-impact PR, and a 95% done, low-impact PR. At Pulumi, we measure "impact" using a couple of different factors, but the most relevant one is OSS user demand, which we measure by upvotes on the issue. When I said this issue was low-priority, I was referencing this imperfect measure of "impact". Since the PR doesn't have an associated open issue, it's at a disadvantage, since that means there aren't any upvotes (or others asking for the feature). It's still a valuable contribution nonetheless. Again, sorry if my comment was rude. |
@@ -67,7 +67,8 @@ const main = async () => { | |||
stack.refresh({ onOutput, ...config.options }).then((r) => r.stdout), | |||
destroy: () => | |||
stack.destroy({ onOutput, ...config.options }).then((r) => r.stdout), | |||
preview: async () => { | |||
cancel: async () => { await stack.cancel(); return "" }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this line needs to be aligned with the others.
No description provided.