Optional Custom-jobs.yml: A Discussion

Introduction

Hey guys! Let's dive into a discussion about whether the custom-jobs.yml file should be optional. This topic came up during the migration to components, where we split the legacy custom-jobs-and-variables.yml. So, what's the deal? Should we make this file optional, or is it crucial to our setup? We'll explore the ins and outs of this decision, considering the implications for project setup, maintenance, and overall workflow. This is super important because it affects how we structure our projects and how easy it is for new folks to get started. Stick around as we break down the arguments and try to figure out the best path forward. Let's make sure we're all on the same page and building something awesome together!

Background: Migration to Components

During the migration to components, we made a significant change by splitting the legacy custom-jobs-and-variables.yml file. This file previously held both allocation parameters and custom job definitions. By separating these concerns, we aimed to create a more modular and maintainable system. The allocation parameters, which specify resources and settings for job execution, can now be passed directly as input to the components. This means that gathering these values using variables in a dedicated file—specifically, custom-jobs.yml—is no longer mandatory. It's more of a convenience for maintenance than a strict requirement. This shift allows us to simplify the initial setup process, making it less daunting for new users and projects. Think of it like this: we're trying to streamline the experience so you can get up and running faster without getting bogged down in unnecessary configurations. But, of course, with any change, there are trade-offs to consider, which we'll dig into.

Allocation Parameters as Input

The ability to pass allocation parameters directly as input to components is a game-changer. In the past, these parameters were often managed through variables defined in a dedicated file, like custom-jobs.yml. While this approach provided a centralized location for managing these settings, it also added a layer of complexity. Now, with the flexibility to pass these parameters directly, we can bypass the need for this intermediate file. This simplifies the setup process and reduces the number of files you need to manage. For example, if you're setting up a new project, you can specify the necessary resources and settings directly in your component configuration, rather than having to create and populate a separate YAML file. This direct approach not only streamlines the initial setup but also makes it easier to understand the configuration at a glance. However, there's a balance to strike, as using a dedicated file can still be beneficial for larger, more complex projects where managing numerous parameters inline might become cumbersome. So, the question is, how do we make the right choice for different scenarios?

Convenience vs. Mandatory

The key point here is that using a dedicated file like custom-jobs.yml for allocation parameters is now a matter of convenience, not a mandatory requirement. This is a significant shift in our approach. In the past, you pretty much had to use such a file to manage these parameters effectively. Now, we're saying, “Hey, you have options!” This flexibility is fantastic because it allows us to tailor our setup to the specific needs of our projects. For smaller projects or simpler setups, skipping the custom-jobs.yml file can significantly reduce overhead and make things easier to manage. On the other hand, for larger projects with a multitude of parameters, a dedicated file can still offer a structured and organized way to keep things under control. The goal is to empower you to choose the method that best fits your workflow and project complexity. It’s like having different tools in your toolbox—you pick the one that’s right for the job!

Examples and Simplicity

To keep the setup process as straightforward as possible, we've intentionally avoided demonstrating the usage of custom-jobs.yml in our initial examples. Why? Because we want to show you the simplest path to getting things done. Think of it like learning to ride a bike—you start with the basics before you add any fancy accessories. By focusing on the core concepts and minimizing the number of moving parts, we make it easier for newcomers to understand the system and get started quickly. This approach also helps to reduce the learning curve and makes the overall experience less intimidating. However, it's crucial to remember that custom-jobs.yml still has its place, particularly in more complex scenarios. So, while we're not showcasing it in the basic examples, it remains a valuable tool in our arsenal. We just want to make sure you're not overwhelmed from the get-go.

Custom Jobs as Template Jobs

Now, let's switch gears and talk about custom jobs. These are template jobs that allow you to apply project-specific settings to all the jobs within a child pipeline. They're a powerful tool for maintaining consistency and streamlining configurations across your projects. Imagine you have a set of settings that need to be applied to every job in a pipeline – custom jobs make this a breeze. You define the template once, and it's automatically applied to all the relevant jobs. This not only saves you time and effort but also reduces the risk of errors that can creep in when manually configuring each job. It's like having a master template that ensures everything is aligned and consistent. This is especially useful in large projects where maintaining consistency is crucial.

Mandatory by Design

By design, defining these custom job templates is mandatory. This might seem a bit strict, but there's a good reason behind it. Child pipelines are explicitly designed to expect these templates, and without them, things can break down pretty quickly. Think of it as a contract: the child pipelines rely on these templates to function correctly. This requirement ensures that essential project-specific settings are consistently applied, which is vital for the smooth operation of the pipeline. The absence of these templates can lead to unexpected behavior, failed jobs, and a whole lot of frustration. So, to maintain stability and predictability, we've made the decision to enforce the definition of custom job templates. It's all about creating a reliable and robust system that you can depend on.

No Default Defined

Why don't we just define default custom job templates at the child pipeline level? That's a fair question! The reason is that custom jobs are meant to be, well, custom. They're designed to apply project-specific settings, and a one-size-fits-all default simply wouldn't cut it. Imagine trying to create a default template that works for every project—it's practically impossible! Each project has its unique requirements, configurations, and dependencies. A default template would likely be too generic to be useful, or worse, it could introduce unintended side effects. By requiring you to define these templates explicitly, we ensure that they're tailored to your specific needs. This approach gives you the flexibility and control you need to configure your pipelines exactly the way you want them. It's all about striking the right balance between standardization and customization.

Duplication Concerns

The decision not to define custom job templates at the child pipeline level was initially driven by concerns about duplication. The thought was that if each child pipeline had to define its own templates, we'd end up with a lot of repetitive configurations. And let's be honest, nobody wants to maintain multiple copies of the same code! The fear was that this duplication would not only increase the workload but also make it harder to keep things consistent across projects. If you change a setting in one template, you'd have to remember to update it in all the others. This seemed like a recipe for errors and inconsistencies. However, as we've explored the issue further, we've realized that the duplication might not be as problematic as we initially thought. In fact, embracing some duplication could actually simplify the initial setup process.

The Case for Optional Custom Jobs

So, here's the crux of the matter: could we accept some duplication in exchange for simplifying the initial setup process? It's a classic trade-off scenario. On one hand, we have the desire to avoid duplication and maintain a lean, DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) codebase. On the other hand, we have the need to make the system as easy as possible for new users to get started. Let's face it, a complex setup process can be a major barrier to entry. If it takes too long or requires too much specialized knowledge to configure a project, people are less likely to adopt the system. So, simplifying the initial setup is a compelling goal. But how do we balance this with the desire to avoid duplication? That's the puzzle we're trying to solve.

Simplifying Initial Setup

The main argument for making custom jobs optional is that it could significantly simplify the initial setup process. Imagine a scenario where you don't have to worry about defining these templates upfront. You can simply start building your pipeline and add the custom jobs later, as needed. This approach would make the system much more approachable for newcomers. It reduces the cognitive load and allows people to focus on the core logic of their pipelines without getting bogged down in configuration details. It's like starting with a blank canvas and adding details as you go, rather than having to fill in a pre-defined template. This incremental approach can make the whole process feel less overwhelming and more intuitive. However, we need to weigh these benefits against the potential downsides.

Less Visible Feature

One potential drawback of making custom jobs optional is that it could make this feature less visible. If defining custom jobs isn't a mandatory step, people might not even realize that they exist. And if they don't know about them, they can't take advantage of their benefits. This is a classic problem in software design: how do you make powerful features discoverable without overwhelming users? We want to make sure that custom jobs are readily accessible to those who need them, but we also don't want to force them on people who don't. It's a delicate balancing act. We might need to explore ways to highlight this feature more effectively, even if it's not a mandatory part of the setup process. Perhaps through better documentation, tutorials, or even in-app prompts.

Duplication at the Component Level

It's important to clarify that the duplication we're discussing here is at the component level, not necessarily at the project configuration level. This is a subtle but crucial distinction. Initially, there was a concern that making custom jobs optional would lead to widespread duplication of configurations across projects. However, the reality is that the duplication would primarily occur within the components themselves. This means that the impact on the overall project configuration might be less significant than we originally thought. And if the duplication is confined to the component level, it might be easier to manage and mitigate. For example, we could potentially use component-level inheritance or other techniques to reduce the amount of repetition. This realization changes the equation somewhat and makes the idea of optional custom jobs a bit more palatable.

Conclusion

So, where do we stand on the question of whether custom-jobs.yml should be optional? It's a complex issue with no easy answer. We've explored the trade-offs between simplicity, discoverability, and duplication. We've seen that making custom jobs optional could simplify the initial setup process, making the system more approachable for newcomers. However, it could also make this powerful feature less visible and potentially lead to some duplication at the component level. Ultimately, the decision hinges on striking the right balance between these competing concerns. We need to weigh the benefits of a simpler setup against the potential drawbacks of reduced visibility and increased duplication. It's a conversation that requires careful consideration and input from the community. What do you guys think? Should we embrace optional custom jobs, or stick with the current mandatory approach? Let's keep the discussion going and work together to find the best solution!