Remove "Absolute paths" row from Compatibility Chart
There is a row in the compatibility chart that says "Absolute Paths" with a check only under Kubernetes. To date I haven't found anyone who knows what this row means, especially with regard to the Kubernetes runner.
Here's the row:
Here's the contents of a Slack conversation:
Francis Potter Oct 1st at 18:47
The “Compatibility chart” on the Executors documentation page includes this line “Absolute paths: caching, artifacts” with the only checkbox being under “Kubernetes”. What exactly does that mean? https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/executors/README.html#compatibility-chart
Joshua Lambert
Not totally sure. Elliot do you know? cc deastman
Tomasz Maczukin
Runner should not allow to use paths outside of working directory for cache and/or artifacts. For example - if your job is executed in /builds/namespace/project (this is the place where the code is cloned), then you can cache/artifact ./file, ./some/path/to/file, but not /tmp/file because the file is outside of the job directory. I'd need to check what absolute exactly means and why Kubernetes is the only exception. I'm 99% sure that we don't allow to use files from outside of the job directory on any of the used executors.
Francis Potter
That makes sense. Do you think this line in the docs is a mistake?
Tomasz Maczukin
OK, the entry was added with the initial work on this documentation part: !79 (merged), Then, after several changes, moving in different place etc. the information about Kubernetes (as the only one supporting) was added with !520 (merged).
Francis Potter
tmaczukin That’s interesting, but does anyone actually know why that row is there and what it means?
Tomasz Maczukin
kamil You was the author of this wording and the one who added the K8S information. Can you explain what it means
Kamil Trzciński
Absolute is always, I don’t recall exceptions for that.
Tomasz Maczukin
This is also what I remember. You can use absolute path, but they must point files within the project directory. If it will be outside, it will fail. I think that it would be best to remove this line totally, since it doesn't have any meaning right now.
I think this row in the documentation is confusing and should be removed.