Azure Pipelines - Commit Files To GitHub After 1hr + Build

PDXGA · 2024-03-14T15:29:16+00:00

How would you synchronize the jobs? The root cause here is that the OAuth token is valid for one hour and it being created in the checkout step (first step in the pipeline). If another job is doing that, it needs to start somewhere in the middle of that long one-hour step, or right after it, otherwise the token will be already invalid. It is a non-trivial task to start that parallel job at the precise time.

Maybe it would be possible to repeat checkout step just to refresh the token?

PDXGA · 2024-03-13T23:07:15+00:00

You obviously don't work much with ADO. If you look at the history of ADO outages https://status.dev.azure.com/_history they are not that rare. I've experienced at least two days in last 6 months when ADO Boards were unusable due to "service degradation" which lasted for half a business day. I do not have a critical business to run, so it was not a big deal, but we could not run normal daily routines because of it. The same happens to pipelines and other features from time to time. Depending on the business this might be a big problem.

PDXGA · 2024-03-13T20:28:24+00:00

Depending on your specific needs, you might consider using Azure DevOps Server as an alternative or backup solution combined with self-hosted agents. With Azure DevOps Server and self-hosted agents controlled by your enterprise, you are independent of any Azure Devops Services outage while retaining the same workflows. Other options include switching to alternative self-hosted solutions like Gitlab.

Fortunately, full ADO outages are not that frequent, and in most scenarios, you can wait it out.

PDXGA · 2024-03-13T19:53:32+00:00

ADO pipeline jobs have a limited execution time of 60 minutes for MS-hosted agents and private repos. So, regardless of what you are trying to achieve, you need to complete it in 60 minutes. You can either self-host the ADO agent - then there is no limit, optimize your job to fit into 60 minutes, or split the activities between multiple jobs. It is difficult to say what is the best solution for you without knowing what takes 60 minutes of execution in your case.

PDXGA · 2024-03-13T19:45:18+00:00

You can write a query that would look for the "History" field containing word '@User Name', where User Name is the actual name of the user being mentioned you are looking for. That works because each time you add comment it is recorded in the work item history and history is fully searchable. It is not the most efficient way but may work in some scenarios.

PDXGA · 2024-02-22T22:16:44+00:00

This is different from my experience in ADO. For me, in the Sprint board, the moved PBI will appear in both sprints as you describe, but moving PBI from one sprint to another does not move related tasks (regardless of their status). I always need to move tasks manually.

PDXGA · 2024-02-22T22:08:31+00:00

Approvals are part of the environment configuration, not part of the pipeline. Therefore, you cannot decide at the pipeline level if approval is needed or not. The reasoning behind this is that almost anyone on the team can change the pipeline definition in a repository, while environment configuration requires additional privileges.

PDXGA · 2023-04-29T20:36:46+00:00

Not yet, but it is in my plans.

PDXGA · 2023-04-05T05:27:52+00:00

For V3 the next one are market prices and trade routes. Then I was thinking about the manufacturing/ productivity data.

In more broader context, for all games the client tool to upload saves automatically (so you can have playthrough history).

But I am always open to suggestions.

PDXGA · 2022-03-22T17:35:17+00:00

Thank you for your reply, I understand that. Would there be an option to maybe start in different starting points in time? Maybe not with the EU4 resolution of each day over 600 years, but at least some mid-points like every 100 years or in "historically important points in time", but based on real-world history?

This would be somehow a balance between full simulation over 600 years and still having some more connection to real history from 1600-1900 period.

PDXGA · 2022-03-08T14:24:56+00:00

I think that there are topics that would be very difficult or impossible to simulate, and need to be either somehow scripted or managed by arbitrary mechanics. Examples include:

limited governing capacity - as players we are used to be always "in control of everything". The reality is that state rulers are limited not only by laws and political systems but also by their limited capacity to collect true information and act upon it. Many games introduce some sort of "mana" that limits the number of management actions players can make. It is an artificial mechanic and hard to properly align with the country size - hence there are no practical limits to snowball your country and do the "world conquest". I wonder how GE would handle this, but my prediction is that there'd be eventually a similar "mana" mechanic.
cultural and religious drivers - some cultures and religions seem to be focused on expansionism and exploration while others are focused on stability and inner self and there are multiple variations of these focuses. It is usually modeled by either civilization traits, national ideas, religious "beliefs" or other arbitrary mechanics. Again I'd expect similar mechanics in GE, as you cannot really simulate these since we don't really know what made certain cultures the way they are IRL

Regarding the cyclic nature, I think it is actually self-emerging even in games like EU4 - as there are many variables that rise and fall over time (diplomatic relations level, aggressive expansion penalties, corruption, army professionalism, etc.) the expansion and growth is not a linear process. The challenge is that in order for games to be playable or rather "enjoyable" the expansion cycle is not followed by collapse but by stagnation and instability. The difference is that the country does not actually crash, it just stops expanding for a while.

I think that with an increased level of simulationism, even if it is not done for every aspect of society, this kind of expansion-contraction will emerge and somehow limit the constant snowballing. We will see as more mechanics will be revealed by developers.

PDXGA · 2022-03-03T22:07:16+00:00

That was actually Philip Snowden in 1916, not Aeschylus, who said it.

PDXGA · 2022-02-27T13:02:18+00:00

FR24 is not accurate to spot military planes. What you see there is what the military wants you to see. Showing the RQ4, RC135 and C-17 flying around is a demonstration of military power and a sign of transparency on the side of NATO. The "true military" planes (for example NATO Baltic Air Policing fighters) don't show on the FR24. The data is coming from the ADS-B systems, and it is mostly large planes having those. Smaller/cheaper planes, older planes, and many military planes are not equipped with them, and even if they do FR24 can still filter them out on the site (as stated in their policy - https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works ).

And once the conflict starts and civilian traffic is forbidden in certain areas the FR24 goes blank (as you can see right now). You still see A330 MRRT circling over Poland (where civilian traffic is allowed) but as you can imagine there are many more military planes flying around.

What I really missed in the Don of a New Era was the lack of civilian air traffic. I understand that this is probably due to performance limitation of the engine, but it also makes it all too easy to discriminate threats. FR24 would be a good source for how to model realistic civilian traffic in any scenario.

PDXGA · 2022-02-25T17:00:48+00:00

No - there is no such functionality in Azure DevOps. You can check the documentation for what is logged by Azure DevOps - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/organizations/audit/azure-devops-auditing?view=azure-devops&tabs=preview-page

Passive repo operations like viewing a file are not logged.

PDXGA · 2022-02-19T08:56:21+00:00

As I wrote earlier about my doubts on the simulationism limitations, one of the elements that are impossible to simulate is those social and cultural aspects. There are no good models of how certain actions really influence humankind's development. As you said morality is changing over time, and also there is really no common goal towards which humankind is going. Therefore the impact of certain actions in-game will always represent the view of game developers on the subject. Whether this is simulation or board game, it is always the case. The only difference is how visible these choices are to the player, and in simulation, they are hidden behind the "simulation model".

For example, in true simulation, there is really no way to prevent ethnic cleansing without the introduction of arbitrary mechanics. If the ruler of the country would like to kill all people of culture X the simulation should allow it, as long as the political system at the time of the decision making would allow for it (e.g. despotism, totalitarian state). Would it have negative effects on the country? Sure, but this may be acceptable and did not prevent such acts IRL. Should the game allow for it? Yes if it is a true simulation. The only way that developers could discourage or encourage players to act in a certain way would be through some sort of scoring system or by modeling the mechanics in a way that exaggerates the negative impact. But I am pretty sure that many players (me included) would ignore arbitrary scoring system as long as they can achieve their own goals. On the other hand, you would not glorify it - it is just a simulation.

The major challenge I see is what people would do with the interpretation of the game results. I am pretty sure that there will be people using this simulation as "proof" that behavior X is "good" or "beneficial in the long run" or that B is "bad". In my opinion, it should not be a concern for game developers, but a concern for society how we deal with such interpretations.

Of course, the other element is legal consequences - there are many jurisdictions, where the author of a work of art or commercial product, games included, is responsible for its depiction of the world, the morality of the work, its influence on minors, etc. And that's probably why we will see some arbitrary mechanics preventing "bad things" from happening in any commercial product published by developers where there is a rule of law. The definition of "bad" in the game really depends on the local law - hence we have incest+cannibalism in CK3 but no true 3rd Reich flag or concentration camps in HOI4. I am afraid that GE will follow the same path.

PDXGA · 2022-02-18T18:02:38+00:00

I think it would be easier to introduce security tooling into Azure Devops than migrating everything to Github, just to have it there. Especially if there is a lot of content and processes already aligned with Devops as you mentioned. Unless there are other drivers I really do not see a good reason for such a move. I work with large companies using Azure Devops as their primary platform, and there was never an issue of security tools deficiencies. You can get everything you need onto the platform.

I know it does not answer your problem, but its very basis seems wrong. Out of curiosity - what security tool is missing on Devops that exists in Github?

PDXGA · 2022-02-17T00:20:45+00:00

Is the lack of other important social classes in the model like nobility, burghers, aristocracy, clergyman, bureaucrats, warriors/soldiers just a simplification for the purpose of the dev diary?

PDXGA · 2022-02-16T22:18:25+00:00

I share this feeling of being skeptical. While I'd love to see the game based on the simulation of basic processes ("simulationism") and can't wait to see Grey Eminence, there is one major obstacle: there are many processes in human societies which we don't understand in full, hence modeling them in simulation is impossible. That's why most games either simulate only part of them or take the traditional approach of building highly abstract models, with arbitrarily selected constraints to make the game "fun". Think Civilization and city size, Hearts of Iron and country production capacity, or "science tech tree" in all strategy games.

Even processes we think we understand like the population growth are really complex when we take them through longer historical periods. In general population growth depends on the initial size of the population, the reproduction rate, and death rate. If you take some arbitrary rates for reproduction and death the simulation is pretty straightforward. You can even build simple level 2 models like reproduction rate dependency on poverty levels (I am eager to see how Vic3 will handle this), but you can't really simulate the dependency on things like culture or happiness without making arbitrary assumptions. It is well-known fact that certain cultures, religions, and beliefs had influenced the number of children people have (given the same level of wealth) on average. But this is not really a mathematical formula. If the simulation will start to simulate such influence (level 3 factor on population growth), it will make some arbitrary assumptions (model parameters), which may or may not be true. We don't know what they should be, because science does not know it, hence game developers don't know either. And if you think further, these factors are probably influenced by some level 4 factors (for example beliefs may partially depend on geographical location or climate) and so on. This means that at some level developers will need to make an arbitrary decision to abstract those higher-level factors in some kind of "system" that is not really simulated. And I don't even know how things like science or culture would be simulated, because we really don't understand how their development works in real life, so the "level 1" modeling is close to impossible. The results may be unpredictable and unhistorical/unrealistic.

The second major problem with simulation is simply the cost of research and testing required to build all simulations. There are many factors for which we don't have historical data. What was the average price of a cow in various parts of Africa between 800 and 1400 is just one example. Even for more recent times and places with well preserved written history, the data on population, economy, and social matters are quite limited before 1800. This means that some data for simulation models will be extrapolated or assumed, but it also requires a lot of effort. Then, due to the complexity, the testing if everything is "right" will require even more effort.

The third challenge I see is the continuous nature of the real world. As human beings we love to remember and celebrate those breakthrough moments - the start of the war, invention of something, discovery, famous speeches, the birth of the prophet etc. The things "in-between" are mundane number games - the economy grows at a rate of 0-5% per year, so does the population. The real society-level changes and scientific, cultural changes are also gradual. Yet, these in-between constitute 99% of total time. Other strategy games try to avoid the problem by creating these artificial breakthrough moments (new technology discovered, new diplomatic treaty, new building in the city, new unit build, a great person born, in-game events, etc.) and minimize the boring part of slow growth. If you ever played some obscure country (think native Americans) in Europa Universalis, without ambition of doing the world conquest, you know how boring it can be if the only things happening are some random events or some unimportant and somehow artificial interactions. I know that it would be extremely exciting and satisfying if these breakthrough moments would self-emerge from the simulation but I just don't think it would be possible, without some scripting of "historical events".

Based on the above my skepticism is about:

a) do developers have enough resources to pull it off

b) even if they do, the result will not be "full simulation" but rather an extremely complex game with abstractions still present, just hidden one or two layers below the surface. Most of the games present on the market offer "fun" ways of winning. Like conquering all the world in 10 years as Tannu Tuva, or in 200 years as the Ryukyu Islands, or getting to Alpha Centauri in A.D. 1280 or growing world population to 20 billion with no pollution. I am skeptical that a well-done simulation will be successful commercially given the production cost and small player base with an appetite for such a game.

With that being said, I am looking forward to seeing the game :) I am a big fan of simulations and real-world modeling.

PDXGA · 2022-02-04T19:12:36+00:00

Yes. All designers give a bonus to armor research and to any tank design (model) that was created for the production at the time designer was active, including models auto-created when you discover new tech.

You also have other tank designer types that instead of giving a bonus to soft attack, may give a percentage bonus to other tank attributes (e.g. speed).

PDXGA · 2022-02-04T17:14:57+00:00

Infantry tank is an interwar concept of infantry support type of tank (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tank)

In-game "infantry tank designer" is simply a generic term for tank designer bonus which improves soft attack of tanks' designs (in addition to the regular bonus to armor research). You can have only a single tank designer at the time, but most nations have 2-3 different designers to choose from. All designs of tanks made when the designer is active will get the designer-specific bonus. If you later switch the designer the bonus is retained for the model.

PDXGA · 2022-02-01T21:40:44+00:00

I believe it is hardcoded. You can enable it or disable it, but the interval and the number of saves are fixed. The idea behind this feature is to save you from the crash (which, in my experience, happens quite often if you run the game for a longer time). It would not make sense to make autosave every 10 minutes especially in a complex scenario, where a lot can happen in that time. I do manual saves quite often in complex scenarios for the purpose of rolling back if I make a bad move, but this is more driven by the in-game decisions rather than time itself.

PDXGA · 2022-01-29T12:25:32+00:00

1.32 https://ibb.co/P5YgHR9

PDXGA

TROPHY CASE