-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 193
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[JENKINS-49073] Parallel step should propagate the worst result when not using failFast #325
Merged
Merged
Changes from 15 commits
Commits
Show all changes
20 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1d6a69b
Simplify originalFailure to make future implementation easier
basil 78fa54b
Refactor suppression attachment to make future implementation easier
basil 1b8ab5e
Pull in pipline-build-step
basil d5c1e58
Parallel step should offer the ability to propagate the worst result
basil f1c1968
Review feedback, SpotBugs
basil a9044ef
Fix flaky test
basil 5561759
Use waitForMessage() rather than assertLogContains() to try to fix te…
basil 6703ac9
Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/jenkinsci/workflow-cps-pl…
basil 23dee2c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into propagate
basil 064a590
Make propagating the worst result the default behavior when failFast …
basil d8e5b7c
Centralize documentation in Javadoc
basil ebb8674
Forgot to remove the usage of propagateWorst in test code.
basil 00b4033
Avoid unnecessary list copying in comparator
basil 1f2e0f4
Add additional test cases
basil 7b292ae
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into propagate
basil 17747e6
Apply suggestions from code review
basil 72b275d
Improve review suggestions
dwnusbaum 8a01e6e
Merge pull request #1 from dwnusbaum/parallel-results
basil b8b3840
Rewrap lines
basil dfb4d12
Update pom.xml
basil File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unnecessary I think; pending JENKINS-27092, can use non-sandboxed scripts which directly
throw new FlowInterruptedException(…)
for tests.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps this isn't necessary, but I think it makes the test more realistic. I saw that we're already pulling in
pipeline-input-step
, so pulling inpipeline-build-step
as well didn't seem like a big price to pay for the benefit of more realistic integration testing. I think I'd rather keep this as-is, but let me know if you feel strongly otherwise.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No strong feeling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally, I'd lean towards the
FlowInterruptedException
approach since it would makeparallelPropagatesStatusImpl
much easier to read, but I think either approach is fine.