Where is the gitlab-ci.yml lint tool?

?

cc @grzesiek

https://gitlab.com/ci/lint documented in http://doc.gitlab.com/ce/ci/yaml/README.html#validate-the-gitlab-ciyml

I don't know why the anchor doesn't work.

@axil that page (/ci/lint) does not exist, afaik

OH! I'm wrong. But it's strange, because you'd expect it in the place where your CI is, which is project/builds

@ayufan @grzesiek put it somewhere else?

@JobV It is available as expected at /ci/lint, we can put it somewhere else though. Where do you think would be a good place for it? project/builds may not be semantically correct location in RESTful routes, as lint tool doesn't depend on project or builds. What do you think?

@grzesiek I think it should be visible in a location where you might be confronted with the problems that result from a faulty .gitlab-ci.yml. So probably /builds or a specific build page.

Maybe we can just add a link from there?

@JobV Maybe it would be nice to have a link somewhere in /builds, and given that .gitlab-ci.yml is present, when someone clicks on link then he should be redirected to lint page where this .gitlab-ci.yml is already validated? So clicking link to CI lint somewhere in builds view would trigger validation. What do you think?

If .gitlab-ci.yml is not correct, you get to this screen where the link to lint tool is displayed https://gitlab.com/axil/dude/commit/e41cb6a4b8b14dcdca8c15e8fb8e84a290d2fa8b/builds

The thing is that the build is not shown in the builds page if the yaml is not correct. You have to go to the commits page to see the failed mark https://gitlab.com/axil/dude/commits/master

Thanks @axil. I propose we:

1. add it to the builds page
2. add another link to it that allows you to use the lint tool before you do it wrong. Preferably in the builds page.

Good idea. Let's expose lint tool on Builds page. @grzesiek Will you handle this?

Reassigned to @grzesiek

Milestone changed to 8.4

mentioned in merge request !2445 (merged)

Status changed to closed by merge request !2445 (merged)

mentioned in issue #37338 (closed)

mentioned in merge request !14785