You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
count_based_retention seems to need project_depth and artifact_depth specified explicitly for it to work. Would make sense if it automatically figured that for any depth?
By default, it would just need to drill down to the folder where the actual artifacts (files) are present, and the parent folder would basically be the 'version folder'. This would help for most repos types and layouts these days - Maven, Docker, Gradle, etc.
Of course, the option to provide these parameters could still remain.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@ramaprakashganesan - It would be really useful for some repositories to be able to just drill down to find the actual artifacts. The reason this required specification is because in our use-cases, sometimes we wanted "artifact_depth" to point to the files, and sometimes it needed to point to the versioned directory, depending on the type of repository and what we wanted to clean up. I originally tried to make it just automatically drill down and had a hard time making it work for all of our repositories and I just never revisited the implementation.
If you have a good way to do this, I'd certainly welcome a PR.
I may try to poke at this too, as it is a feature I'd like to offer, but I can not commit to any timeline on getting it done.
count_based_retention seems to need project_depth and artifact_depth specified explicitly for it to work. Would make sense if it automatically figured that for any depth?
By default, it would just need to drill down to the folder where the actual artifacts (files) are present, and the parent folder would basically be the 'version folder'. This would help for most repos types and layouts these days - Maven, Docker, Gradle, etc.
Of course, the option to provide these parameters could still remain.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: