[Question] Hanging checks with "withChecks()"

[noru]

Hi,

I'm using Checks API plugin along with Github Checks API. According to the document, I wrote this code in my pipeline script:

steps {
    withChecks('CI/Main/CheckStyle') {
        // do stuff
        exit 1 // if error occured, the check will be completed with error  
         
        // But if everything is fine, no "COMPLETED" is published to the check, leave it forever hanging.
        // to solve this I'll have to manually do a publish 
        echo 'hello'
        publishChecks(name: 'CI/Main/CheckStyle', conclusion: 'SUCCESS', summary: 'Lint passed')
    }
}

The check is successfully published, but, as described above, I'll have to manually complete a check in my steps.

It seems the code didn't publish any checks in onSuccess on purpose.

I googled a lot for the usage of withChecks, no mention of this behavior. And examples on Github simply wrap normal steps without the manual complete.

I'm new to this, my usage could be wrong. Could someone help me with the correct usage of witchChecks? Appreciated!

[KalleOlaviNiemitalo]

That was discussed in #49 (comment).

[noru]

Thanks @KalleOlaviNiemitalo ! That explains it.

Though this should be documented properly I think.

[mrginglymus]

The pattern I'd always intended to use with this (but never got round to implementing) was to add an optional checks publisher to warnError. For e.g. running tests you can do:

withChecks('My Tests') {
    sh 'run_tests > results.xml'
    junit 'results.xml'
}

and that works fine; sometimes you have a one-shot command where you just want to report success or failure. It would be nice to extend warnError to be checks aware:

withChecks('One Shot') {
    warnError('One Shot') {
        sh 'one_shot'
    }
}

ie, have warnError report the appropriate success/failure message to the active checks context.

Alternatively get warnError to be fully responsible for doing the checks itself, so

warnError(message: 'One Shot', publishChecks: true) {
    sh 'one_shot'
}

Not sure why I never got round to doing it, but happy to take another look if people think it might be a useful pattern?

[timja]

created #200 to track enhancement

[timja]

Semi related pull request which helps in some cases: #254