[Buildbot-commits] [Buildbot] #1748: Allow obfuscating passwords, etc. on the master

[Buildbot trac]

#1748: Allow obfuscating passwords, etc. on the master
------------------------+--------------------
Reporter:  GreYFoX      |       Owner:
    Type:  enhancement  |      Status:  new
Priority:  minor        |   Milestone:  0.8.+
 Version:  0.8.3        |  Resolution:
Keywords:  sprint       |
------------------------+--------------------

Old description:

> well today i tried everything to get Obfuscated to work but i couldn't
>
> my dilemma is that i have a shell script to upload the built project to
> an ftp, i do this by placing the script in my system folder
>
> i wanted to generalize the process by making the script take the
> user/pass in args to the calling of this script, but if i do that then
> it's publicly visible to everyone who has access to my waterfall and logs
>
> what i want is the ability to hide the command being executed or part of
> it.
>
> P.S. if obfuscated already does that, don't blame me i read the docs,
> searched google and asked on irc, i was told i can;t use obfuscated in
> buildmaster factories, and i couldn't find out where o use it or how!.

New description:

 well today i tried everything to get Obfuscated to work but i couldn't

 my dilemma is that i have a shell script to upload the built project to an
 ftp, i do this by placing the script in my system folder

 i wanted to generalize the process by making the script take the user/pass
 in args to the calling of this script, but if i do that then it's publicly
 visible to everyone who has access to my waterfall and logs

 what i want is the ability to hide the command being executed or part of
 it.

 P.S. if obfuscated already does that, don't blame me i read the docs,
 searched google and asked on irc, i was told i can;t use obfuscated in
 buildmaster factories, and i couldn't find out where o use it or how!.

--

Comment (by dustin):

 Does that solution work?  The command is echoed in a few places on the
 slave, too, I believe.  Perhaps not for the svn step, but for shell
 commands in general.

 I think that the web status is a bit late to hide that information - it
 means that we need to have a way of persisting the "hidden" state all the
 way from the slave, to the master, through the db and mq interfaces, and
 into the web UI.  And in the 'nine' world, we would need to do the access
 control at the REST API layer.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.buildbot.net/ticket/1748#comment:9>
Buildbot <http://buildbot.net/>
Buildbot: build/test automation