Up to now the code generator is not able to handle the type
map[string]interface{} which is important for nested
configurations.
With that change we support such nested configuration.
Fo now parameters with a map type are not supported via
command line parameters. Those parameters are simply
ommitted. But with this change is it possible to read
such nested structures from the pipeline configuration
(.pipeline/config.yml).
As a next step we can discuss if we would like to support
such values also via command line parameters. One possible
approach could be
```
./piper <command> -myParam key1=val1 --myParam key2=val2
```
which gets finally collected inside our map:
```
map["key1"] = "val1"
map["key2"] = "val2"
```
This is of course hard to do for deeper nestings. In that case
providing a pointer to a file might be more suitable.
In that context we need to consider how to
- declare the default values for map like parameters in our
metadata files.
- deal with the different types we have for the parameter
itself wrt the yaml like config on the one hand and on the
level of the command line parameters on the other hand. Maybe for
that we have to extend the metadata format (e.g. describe an
alternate type receiving the values from the command line, like
[]string. With that approach values for simple nested (... not deep
nested) params can be provided like described above, it would be
possible to represent these parameters for the command line parser
as string slice entries like "[]string{key1=val1, key2=val2". These
parameters needs in this case transformed "by us" into the map we
use further down the road.
In case we agree in principle on an approach as outlined here we should
adjust the golden files reflecting this use case.
* wrap all in docker.withRegistry()
* Renamed parameter
No backwards alias, since it never worked before.
* Fix code and tests
* Rename parameter as per review
* Rename parameter as per review
Co-authored-by: Daniel Kurzynski <daniel.kurzynski@sap.com>
* initial commit of yaml file
* initial commit for HaDoLint in GO
* add helper function to load file from url
* load config file
* write report information to disk
* comment the code
* refactor groovy code
* remove download function from FileUtils
* use http.Downloader
* rename step files
* update generated files
* update generated files
* remove duplicate commands
* add credentials for config url
* add generated test file
* reuse piperExecuteBin functions
* correct step name
* update go step
* deactivate test
* fix import
* use differing go step name
* rename step
* correct result publishing
* correct command name
* expose tls insecure flag
* hand through error
* disable tls verification
* fix tls disabling
* use credentials
* mow
* reformat
* add qgate only if set
* correct report name
* remove old defaults
* add qgate to defaults
* handle report name
* restore default
* remove unused step config
* use piperExecuteBin
* remove obsolete type
* add test cases
* remove groovy tests
* move client parameter handling to run function
* use custom interfaces and mockery
* remove commented code
* correct struct names
* rename parameter dockerfile
* add further asserts
* cleanup
* change file permission to read/write
* remove tokenize
* add further comments
* init http client only if necessary
* add todo
* Revert "rename parameter dockerfile"
This reverts commit 2a570685b8.
* add alias for dockerfile parameter
* correct test case
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Stephan Aßmus <stephan.assmus@sap.com>
* add comment about mock assertions
Co-authored-by: Stephan Aßmus <stephan.assmus@sap.com>
* expose GetExitCode
* set error category for user issues
* fix typo
* Update command.go
Co-authored-by: Oliver Nocon <33484802+OliverNocon@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix checkmarx docs
* go generate
Co-authored-by: Christopher Fenner <26137398+CCFenner@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Oliver Nocon <33484802+OliverNocon@users.noreply.github.com>
This change adds the steps mavenExecuteIntegration, mavenExecuteStaticCodeChecks,
npmExecuteLint and npmExecuteScripts to the stage piperPipelineStagePRVoting.
Is there any benefit from having
```
assert.Error(./.)
assert.EqualError(./.)
```
?
assert.Error ensures that we have an error.
assert.EqualError ensures that we have an error and
moreover it checks for a specific error. Hence
assert.EqualError does all and more what assert.Error
does.
In case there is a benefit from that pattern this PR should not be merged.
In case there is not benefit from that pattern we should abandong that pattern.
* Add limitation for only using master branch
* Update documentation/docs/scenarios/abapEnvironmentAddons.md
Co-authored-by: Daniel Mieg <56156797+DanielMieg@users.noreply.github.com>
