@andi You private repo remains private and the applications only get pushed to you know own cluster (when configured). If no cluster is present your application is not deployed.
@bfredtim the directions to disable at the instance-level are for self-managed instances for GitLab only. For GitLab.com there is no need to disable your project after an Auto DevOps pipeline fails; Auto DevOps will be automatically disabled after a failure.
11.4 was released yesterday, and the terrible decision to enable autodevops by default has not been reverted
I have checked with one of the colleagues who encountered the problems, and it seems they were “just” what has already been reported:
- confusing mails
- blocked merges
- autodevops NOT automatically being disabled
- doesn’t make sense
As we pay for gitlab, and read the release logs, we felt justified in believing gitlab wouldn’t disturb our work, but it did! You might feel autodevops is smart, and offers value to some of your customers, but it also cost a lot for some of your customers! Enabling it by default was a TERRIBLE idea. I think gitlab should be glad you don’t have much competition.
It’s also somewhat interesting to realise that although many users visit this forum every day, this thread has now existed for 20 days without anyone (except for three gitlab employees) saying anything positive about this “feature”, so several people hate it and point to very specific problems and noone likes it enough to defend it, except employees who more or less have to.
And I still would like to know how I can get it disabled instance wide (from a configuration file, so it can be automated) on the new instance I’m going to set up soon.
Agree with this. Confusing to Developers and resulted in emails to me and therefore extra work. Bad decision I’m afraid.
As a brand new user to GitLab trying out the service, I was looking forward to moving my projects from BitBucket. I wrote a little bash script to loop through all my private repos, add a second pushurl to them to hit GitLab, and pushed. GitLab made new private repos for me which was awesome! Great first impression. But then my inbox filled with like 50+ auto devops failures. Since I had no intention of wasting hours clicking through to make new repos in the UI, this always-on-at-first auto devops setting is a real poor initial user experience with GitLab. The documentation references disabling via “Admin area > Settings > Continuous Integration and Deployment”, but I can’t find any “Admin area”, and the docs don’t link to a visual (https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/topics/autodevops/).
I think I understand what the intent of opt-out auto devops is and I might support that if the implementation was good (success by default when non-configured would go a long way). But as it stands, it is not working and the user feedback here seems to support that. I want to like and use GitLab, but this was a pretty rough first impression. One other oddity - not all my repos had auto-devops on, and by deleting the “failed” repos and re-adding them the same way (by adding a second remote from BitBucket), some of them successfully made it in without auto-devops enabled. Weird.
I dunno - maybe the issue is merely cosmetic (aside from all the email spam), but some of my older repos may never see another commit, and sitting there in a failed state forever is intolerable. Picky, I know. Anyway, hope this helps and that users are being heard.
Hey, we are running into problems with this, too, and are not happy with it. We need a way to globally disable this feature on gitlab.com. The superfluous error messages are confusing and it seems that even the failed Auto DevOps runs have eaten up quota. Please disable this by default or tell us where exactly can we disable the automatically enabled Auto DevOps “globally” for all new (and existing) projects in a group on gitlab.com.
The Application settings API lists
auto_devops_enabled as a setting that can be accessed (and hopefully changed by the method shown, but I won’t test that on our production server during working hours). So now I’ve added a task for myself in seeing what we can control through this part of the API, and make a script to check/set those settings that matter.
It’s amazing that none of the gitlab employees that have visited this thread knew that and bothered to write so, the most plausible (to me at least) explanation is that gitlab employees are more concerned with making this mis-feature work (possibly because it makes users of the hosted solution pay for more CPU?) than helping those of us with our own installations manage those effectively. When searching for something completely different I just stumbled upon what I think is the answer to the question I asked in this thread two months ago.
Thanks for following up on this.
Update: I’ve just been reminded that the Web UI and that API setting have equivalent functionality (thanks @axil!)
I cannot answer for the other GitLabbers in the thread, but I’m fairly certain that if others would have known the answer, they would have pointed to it.
New features land every month, and it’s a vast and fast-paced project. It’s often the case that unless you are involved on a particular stage you might not be aware of one particular feature or how that part of GitLab you haven’t yet been exposed to works. In general I tend to assume good intentions.
The discussion on this thread is open and so is the documentation, although it seems we could do a better job in terms of discoverability!
I knew about that Web UI setting, that’s what we’ve gotten by with so far, but when you care about your set up, you prefer settings that can be automated, the API setting hopefully falls in that category (I’ve been busy with other stuff - e.g. a SSL certificate renewal that broke our GitLab, but that’s not for here - so I haven’t gotten around to try), but without any hints it was there… Well it took two months.
I also prefer to assume people have good intentions, but having seen this, and requests for very necessary features like:
I don’t see how to draw other conclusions than GitLab not being interested in “helping those of us with our own installations manage those effectively”
And yet another example of the poor user treatment in this thread: nobody cared to point @sebastian.meyer at:
it might not have helped him directly, but knowing the issue exists might at least make him feel a bit comforted and less alone.