Can a single pipeline entry view the whole pipeline?











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have a function that can generate either tabular output or json ouput. I know that the conventional way to handle this would be to use a parameter like this:



$ func -j | jq .firstField
$ func -t | awk '{print $1}'


I would like to "look ahead" and infer the output type based on the next stage in the pipeline. The ideal usage would be simply:



$ func | jq .firstField
$ func | awk '{print $1}'


I imagine that somewhere within func I would check the 0'th argument to the next stage in the pipeline and see if it contains a j. I'd produce json if so and tables otherwise.



Does bash allow such voodoo? If so, how?










share|improve this question






















  • why not have a flag to func so func -j | jsonfoo or func -t | tablefoo or ...
    – thrig
    Nov 30 at 22:55










  • func is actually a stand in for a command that takes a sql query as a parameter. I want to use zsh-autosuggestions or fzf to recall the query from history and then decide what to do with its output. I keep catching myself recalling the query with the wrong parameter and then forgetting to go modify it before actually running the command. It's silly, but if I can hack around it then I'll never make that kind of mistake again. I'm sure it'll pay off in like, a decade.
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Nov 30 at 23:34










  • Really though, I'm just curious. Using bash pipelines as glue is fun, and if I could make the commands adapt to their neighbors, that would be more fun.
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Nov 30 at 23:55















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have a function that can generate either tabular output or json ouput. I know that the conventional way to handle this would be to use a parameter like this:



$ func -j | jq .firstField
$ func -t | awk '{print $1}'


I would like to "look ahead" and infer the output type based on the next stage in the pipeline. The ideal usage would be simply:



$ func | jq .firstField
$ func | awk '{print $1}'


I imagine that somewhere within func I would check the 0'th argument to the next stage in the pipeline and see if it contains a j. I'd produce json if so and tables otherwise.



Does bash allow such voodoo? If so, how?










share|improve this question






















  • why not have a flag to func so func -j | jsonfoo or func -t | tablefoo or ...
    – thrig
    Nov 30 at 22:55










  • func is actually a stand in for a command that takes a sql query as a parameter. I want to use zsh-autosuggestions or fzf to recall the query from history and then decide what to do with its output. I keep catching myself recalling the query with the wrong parameter and then forgetting to go modify it before actually running the command. It's silly, but if I can hack around it then I'll never make that kind of mistake again. I'm sure it'll pay off in like, a decade.
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Nov 30 at 23:34










  • Really though, I'm just curious. Using bash pipelines as glue is fun, and if I could make the commands adapt to their neighbors, that would be more fun.
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Nov 30 at 23:55













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I have a function that can generate either tabular output or json ouput. I know that the conventional way to handle this would be to use a parameter like this:



$ func -j | jq .firstField
$ func -t | awk '{print $1}'


I would like to "look ahead" and infer the output type based on the next stage in the pipeline. The ideal usage would be simply:



$ func | jq .firstField
$ func | awk '{print $1}'


I imagine that somewhere within func I would check the 0'th argument to the next stage in the pipeline and see if it contains a j. I'd produce json if so and tables otherwise.



Does bash allow such voodoo? If so, how?










share|improve this question













I have a function that can generate either tabular output or json ouput. I know that the conventional way to handle this would be to use a parameter like this:



$ func -j | jq .firstField
$ func -t | awk '{print $1}'


I would like to "look ahead" and infer the output type based on the next stage in the pipeline. The ideal usage would be simply:



$ func | jq .firstField
$ func | awk '{print $1}'


I imagine that somewhere within func I would check the 0'th argument to the next stage in the pipeline and see if it contains a j. I'd produce json if so and tables otherwise.



Does bash allow such voodoo? If so, how?







bash






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 30 at 22:37









MatrixManAtYrService

1727




1727












  • why not have a flag to func so func -j | jsonfoo or func -t | tablefoo or ...
    – thrig
    Nov 30 at 22:55










  • func is actually a stand in for a command that takes a sql query as a parameter. I want to use zsh-autosuggestions or fzf to recall the query from history and then decide what to do with its output. I keep catching myself recalling the query with the wrong parameter and then forgetting to go modify it before actually running the command. It's silly, but if I can hack around it then I'll never make that kind of mistake again. I'm sure it'll pay off in like, a decade.
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Nov 30 at 23:34










  • Really though, I'm just curious. Using bash pipelines as glue is fun, and if I could make the commands adapt to their neighbors, that would be more fun.
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Nov 30 at 23:55


















  • why not have a flag to func so func -j | jsonfoo or func -t | tablefoo or ...
    – thrig
    Nov 30 at 22:55










  • func is actually a stand in for a command that takes a sql query as a parameter. I want to use zsh-autosuggestions or fzf to recall the query from history and then decide what to do with its output. I keep catching myself recalling the query with the wrong parameter and then forgetting to go modify it before actually running the command. It's silly, but if I can hack around it then I'll never make that kind of mistake again. I'm sure it'll pay off in like, a decade.
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Nov 30 at 23:34










  • Really though, I'm just curious. Using bash pipelines as glue is fun, and if I could make the commands adapt to their neighbors, that would be more fun.
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Nov 30 at 23:55
















why not have a flag to func so func -j | jsonfoo or func -t | tablefoo or ...
– thrig
Nov 30 at 22:55




why not have a flag to func so func -j | jsonfoo or func -t | tablefoo or ...
– thrig
Nov 30 at 22:55












func is actually a stand in for a command that takes a sql query as a parameter. I want to use zsh-autosuggestions or fzf to recall the query from history and then decide what to do with its output. I keep catching myself recalling the query with the wrong parameter and then forgetting to go modify it before actually running the command. It's silly, but if I can hack around it then I'll never make that kind of mistake again. I'm sure it'll pay off in like, a decade.
– MatrixManAtYrService
Nov 30 at 23:34




func is actually a stand in for a command that takes a sql query as a parameter. I want to use zsh-autosuggestions or fzf to recall the query from history and then decide what to do with its output. I keep catching myself recalling the query with the wrong parameter and then forgetting to go modify it before actually running the command. It's silly, but if I can hack around it then I'll never make that kind of mistake again. I'm sure it'll pay off in like, a decade.
– MatrixManAtYrService
Nov 30 at 23:34












Really though, I'm just curious. Using bash pipelines as glue is fun, and if I could make the commands adapt to their neighbors, that would be more fun.
– MatrixManAtYrService
Nov 30 at 23:55




Really though, I'm just curious. Using bash pipelines as glue is fun, and if I could make the commands adapt to their neighbors, that would be more fun.
– MatrixManAtYrService
Nov 30 at 23:55










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










There is no formal metadata or query API associated with a pipeline,
beyond what may be salvaged from the process tree via process tools or
from digging around in /proc type filesystems, should those exist. The
parent shell will (probably) have the complete pipeline somewhere in
memory and will know the various child processes involved though again
there is no API by which an arbitrary cat of the (pointless, except as
an example) pipeline cat | cat | cat | ... would know which cat it
is in that pipeline and therefore who its peers are.



% cat | cat -b | cat -e | cat -n


is more useful as with unique flags a human will have an easier
time of telling which is which; pstree(1) in another terminal for
example may show



 |     -+= 35276 jhqdoe -zsh (zsh)
| |--- 44661 jhqdoe cat -n
| |--- 03968 jhqdoe cat -b
| |--- 96165 jhqdoe cat -e
| --= 26975 jhqdoe cat


but this would not tell us that cat -e pipes to cat -n, only
that the bag of cats all belong to the process group of the parent
shell 35276.



% ps ao ppid,pid,command | grep '[ ]cat'
35276 44661 cat -n
35276 96165 cat -e
35276 3968 cat -b
35276 26975 cat


If the system you are on has /proc or commands to inspect what pipes
or descriptors of a pid are wired up to what you may be able to figure
out what is connected to what in a process group that a process belongs
to. For example over on linux with lsof and a similar cat pipeline
running, the cat -e and cat -n commands can be linked as they both
share the pipe 14301040:



-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23591 | grep pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301039 pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 1w FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe
-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23592 | grep pipe
cat 23592 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe


so while this information may be available it may take a bunch of
digging around and reconstructing with unportable tools to figure out.



A parent shell could perhaps offer a means to rewrite the pipeline after
it has been input, though the ZSH hook function preexec does not
appear to offer any means of rewriting the command to be run. (Such a
feature may be similar to how LISP macros let a programmer rework the
code.) A parent shell might also offer some sort of API child processes
could use to inspect the pipeline...but these sorts of additions would
need to be written into the shell.



However one could construct a complex pipeline:



func | ( cd ... && ... | ( ... | awk ... ) )


in which case your func would either fail to find awk and react
(maybe) wrongly, or your process pipeline search feature would need to
recurse through all the commands of the next pipeline element and in
that case the awk might be unrelated to func and not need
modification on the fly. Or you could forget that you setup this
behaviour and the awk could be incorrectly modified, which may lead to
hard-to-find bugs...






share|improve this answer





















  • I was preparing myself to get a "no", but it looks like there's hope. Seems like one could write a utility that would interrogate its context through these means and spit out the pipeline structure. I get what you're saying re:unportable, but I figure you could respond to system differences as they come and have the utility sense enough of its context to adapt. I may try to build such a thing... I've learned a lot from this post, thank you!
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Dec 5 at 22:46











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485271%2fcan-a-single-pipeline-entry-view-the-whole-pipeline%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
1
down vote



accepted










There is no formal metadata or query API associated with a pipeline,
beyond what may be salvaged from the process tree via process tools or
from digging around in /proc type filesystems, should those exist. The
parent shell will (probably) have the complete pipeline somewhere in
memory and will know the various child processes involved though again
there is no API by which an arbitrary cat of the (pointless, except as
an example) pipeline cat | cat | cat | ... would know which cat it
is in that pipeline and therefore who its peers are.



% cat | cat -b | cat -e | cat -n


is more useful as with unique flags a human will have an easier
time of telling which is which; pstree(1) in another terminal for
example may show



 |     -+= 35276 jhqdoe -zsh (zsh)
| |--- 44661 jhqdoe cat -n
| |--- 03968 jhqdoe cat -b
| |--- 96165 jhqdoe cat -e
| --= 26975 jhqdoe cat


but this would not tell us that cat -e pipes to cat -n, only
that the bag of cats all belong to the process group of the parent
shell 35276.



% ps ao ppid,pid,command | grep '[ ]cat'
35276 44661 cat -n
35276 96165 cat -e
35276 3968 cat -b
35276 26975 cat


If the system you are on has /proc or commands to inspect what pipes
or descriptors of a pid are wired up to what you may be able to figure
out what is connected to what in a process group that a process belongs
to. For example over on linux with lsof and a similar cat pipeline
running, the cat -e and cat -n commands can be linked as they both
share the pipe 14301040:



-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23591 | grep pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301039 pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 1w FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe
-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23592 | grep pipe
cat 23592 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe


so while this information may be available it may take a bunch of
digging around and reconstructing with unportable tools to figure out.



A parent shell could perhaps offer a means to rewrite the pipeline after
it has been input, though the ZSH hook function preexec does not
appear to offer any means of rewriting the command to be run. (Such a
feature may be similar to how LISP macros let a programmer rework the
code.) A parent shell might also offer some sort of API child processes
could use to inspect the pipeline...but these sorts of additions would
need to be written into the shell.



However one could construct a complex pipeline:



func | ( cd ... && ... | ( ... | awk ... ) )


in which case your func would either fail to find awk and react
(maybe) wrongly, or your process pipeline search feature would need to
recurse through all the commands of the next pipeline element and in
that case the awk might be unrelated to func and not need
modification on the fly. Or you could forget that you setup this
behaviour and the awk could be incorrectly modified, which may lead to
hard-to-find bugs...






share|improve this answer





















  • I was preparing myself to get a "no", but it looks like there's hope. Seems like one could write a utility that would interrogate its context through these means and spit out the pipeline structure. I get what you're saying re:unportable, but I figure you could respond to system differences as they come and have the utility sense enough of its context to adapt. I may try to build such a thing... I've learned a lot from this post, thank you!
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Dec 5 at 22:46















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










There is no formal metadata or query API associated with a pipeline,
beyond what may be salvaged from the process tree via process tools or
from digging around in /proc type filesystems, should those exist. The
parent shell will (probably) have the complete pipeline somewhere in
memory and will know the various child processes involved though again
there is no API by which an arbitrary cat of the (pointless, except as
an example) pipeline cat | cat | cat | ... would know which cat it
is in that pipeline and therefore who its peers are.



% cat | cat -b | cat -e | cat -n


is more useful as with unique flags a human will have an easier
time of telling which is which; pstree(1) in another terminal for
example may show



 |     -+= 35276 jhqdoe -zsh (zsh)
| |--- 44661 jhqdoe cat -n
| |--- 03968 jhqdoe cat -b
| |--- 96165 jhqdoe cat -e
| --= 26975 jhqdoe cat


but this would not tell us that cat -e pipes to cat -n, only
that the bag of cats all belong to the process group of the parent
shell 35276.



% ps ao ppid,pid,command | grep '[ ]cat'
35276 44661 cat -n
35276 96165 cat -e
35276 3968 cat -b
35276 26975 cat


If the system you are on has /proc or commands to inspect what pipes
or descriptors of a pid are wired up to what you may be able to figure
out what is connected to what in a process group that a process belongs
to. For example over on linux with lsof and a similar cat pipeline
running, the cat -e and cat -n commands can be linked as they both
share the pipe 14301040:



-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23591 | grep pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301039 pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 1w FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe
-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23592 | grep pipe
cat 23592 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe


so while this information may be available it may take a bunch of
digging around and reconstructing with unportable tools to figure out.



A parent shell could perhaps offer a means to rewrite the pipeline after
it has been input, though the ZSH hook function preexec does not
appear to offer any means of rewriting the command to be run. (Such a
feature may be similar to how LISP macros let a programmer rework the
code.) A parent shell might also offer some sort of API child processes
could use to inspect the pipeline...but these sorts of additions would
need to be written into the shell.



However one could construct a complex pipeline:



func | ( cd ... && ... | ( ... | awk ... ) )


in which case your func would either fail to find awk and react
(maybe) wrongly, or your process pipeline search feature would need to
recurse through all the commands of the next pipeline element and in
that case the awk might be unrelated to func and not need
modification on the fly. Or you could forget that you setup this
behaviour and the awk could be incorrectly modified, which may lead to
hard-to-find bugs...






share|improve this answer





















  • I was preparing myself to get a "no", but it looks like there's hope. Seems like one could write a utility that would interrogate its context through these means and spit out the pipeline structure. I get what you're saying re:unportable, but I figure you could respond to system differences as they come and have the utility sense enough of its context to adapt. I may try to build such a thing... I've learned a lot from this post, thank you!
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Dec 5 at 22:46













up vote
1
down vote



accepted







up vote
1
down vote



accepted






There is no formal metadata or query API associated with a pipeline,
beyond what may be salvaged from the process tree via process tools or
from digging around in /proc type filesystems, should those exist. The
parent shell will (probably) have the complete pipeline somewhere in
memory and will know the various child processes involved though again
there is no API by which an arbitrary cat of the (pointless, except as
an example) pipeline cat | cat | cat | ... would know which cat it
is in that pipeline and therefore who its peers are.



% cat | cat -b | cat -e | cat -n


is more useful as with unique flags a human will have an easier
time of telling which is which; pstree(1) in another terminal for
example may show



 |     -+= 35276 jhqdoe -zsh (zsh)
| |--- 44661 jhqdoe cat -n
| |--- 03968 jhqdoe cat -b
| |--- 96165 jhqdoe cat -e
| --= 26975 jhqdoe cat


but this would not tell us that cat -e pipes to cat -n, only
that the bag of cats all belong to the process group of the parent
shell 35276.



% ps ao ppid,pid,command | grep '[ ]cat'
35276 44661 cat -n
35276 96165 cat -e
35276 3968 cat -b
35276 26975 cat


If the system you are on has /proc or commands to inspect what pipes
or descriptors of a pid are wired up to what you may be able to figure
out what is connected to what in a process group that a process belongs
to. For example over on linux with lsof and a similar cat pipeline
running, the cat -e and cat -n commands can be linked as they both
share the pipe 14301040:



-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23591 | grep pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301039 pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 1w FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe
-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23592 | grep pipe
cat 23592 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe


so while this information may be available it may take a bunch of
digging around and reconstructing with unportable tools to figure out.



A parent shell could perhaps offer a means to rewrite the pipeline after
it has been input, though the ZSH hook function preexec does not
appear to offer any means of rewriting the command to be run. (Such a
feature may be similar to how LISP macros let a programmer rework the
code.) A parent shell might also offer some sort of API child processes
could use to inspect the pipeline...but these sorts of additions would
need to be written into the shell.



However one could construct a complex pipeline:



func | ( cd ... && ... | ( ... | awk ... ) )


in which case your func would either fail to find awk and react
(maybe) wrongly, or your process pipeline search feature would need to
recurse through all the commands of the next pipeline element and in
that case the awk might be unrelated to func and not need
modification on the fly. Or you could forget that you setup this
behaviour and the awk could be incorrectly modified, which may lead to
hard-to-find bugs...






share|improve this answer












There is no formal metadata or query API associated with a pipeline,
beyond what may be salvaged from the process tree via process tools or
from digging around in /proc type filesystems, should those exist. The
parent shell will (probably) have the complete pipeline somewhere in
memory and will know the various child processes involved though again
there is no API by which an arbitrary cat of the (pointless, except as
an example) pipeline cat | cat | cat | ... would know which cat it
is in that pipeline and therefore who its peers are.



% cat | cat -b | cat -e | cat -n


is more useful as with unique flags a human will have an easier
time of telling which is which; pstree(1) in another terminal for
example may show



 |     -+= 35276 jhqdoe -zsh (zsh)
| |--- 44661 jhqdoe cat -n
| |--- 03968 jhqdoe cat -b
| |--- 96165 jhqdoe cat -e
| --= 26975 jhqdoe cat


but this would not tell us that cat -e pipes to cat -n, only
that the bag of cats all belong to the process group of the parent
shell 35276.



% ps ao ppid,pid,command | grep '[ ]cat'
35276 44661 cat -n
35276 96165 cat -e
35276 3968 cat -b
35276 26975 cat


If the system you are on has /proc or commands to inspect what pipes
or descriptors of a pid are wired up to what you may be able to figure
out what is connected to what in a process group that a process belongs
to. For example over on linux with lsof and a similar cat pipeline
running, the cat -e and cat -n commands can be linked as they both
share the pipe 14301040:



-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23591 | grep pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301039 pipe
cat 23591 jhqdoe 1w FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe
-bash-4.2$ lsof -p 23592 | grep pipe
cat 23592 jhqdoe 0r FIFO 0,9 0t0 14301040 pipe


so while this information may be available it may take a bunch of
digging around and reconstructing with unportable tools to figure out.



A parent shell could perhaps offer a means to rewrite the pipeline after
it has been input, though the ZSH hook function preexec does not
appear to offer any means of rewriting the command to be run. (Such a
feature may be similar to how LISP macros let a programmer rework the
code.) A parent shell might also offer some sort of API child processes
could use to inspect the pipeline...but these sorts of additions would
need to be written into the shell.



However one could construct a complex pipeline:



func | ( cd ... && ... | ( ... | awk ... ) )


in which case your func would either fail to find awk and react
(maybe) wrongly, or your process pipeline search feature would need to
recurse through all the commands of the next pipeline element and in
that case the awk might be unrelated to func and not need
modification on the fly. Or you could forget that you setup this
behaviour and the awk could be incorrectly modified, which may lead to
hard-to-find bugs...







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 5 at 20:31









thrig

23.9k22955




23.9k22955












  • I was preparing myself to get a "no", but it looks like there's hope. Seems like one could write a utility that would interrogate its context through these means and spit out the pipeline structure. I get what you're saying re:unportable, but I figure you could respond to system differences as they come and have the utility sense enough of its context to adapt. I may try to build such a thing... I've learned a lot from this post, thank you!
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Dec 5 at 22:46


















  • I was preparing myself to get a "no", but it looks like there's hope. Seems like one could write a utility that would interrogate its context through these means and spit out the pipeline structure. I get what you're saying re:unportable, but I figure you could respond to system differences as they come and have the utility sense enough of its context to adapt. I may try to build such a thing... I've learned a lot from this post, thank you!
    – MatrixManAtYrService
    Dec 5 at 22:46
















I was preparing myself to get a "no", but it looks like there's hope. Seems like one could write a utility that would interrogate its context through these means and spit out the pipeline structure. I get what you're saying re:unportable, but I figure you could respond to system differences as they come and have the utility sense enough of its context to adapt. I may try to build such a thing... I've learned a lot from this post, thank you!
– MatrixManAtYrService
Dec 5 at 22:46




I was preparing myself to get a "no", but it looks like there's hope. Seems like one could write a utility that would interrogate its context through these means and spit out the pipeline structure. I get what you're saying re:unportable, but I figure you could respond to system differences as they come and have the utility sense enough of its context to adapt. I may try to build such a thing... I've learned a lot from this post, thank you!
– MatrixManAtYrService
Dec 5 at 22:46


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485271%2fcan-a-single-pipeline-entry-view-the-whole-pipeline%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Morgemoulin

Scott Moir

Souastre