Skip to content
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-33577] Demonstration test #80

Merged

Conversation

jglick
Copy link
Member

@jglick jglick commented Mar 16, 2016

JENKINS-33577

@reviewbybees esp. @apemberton

…py artifacts from a build downstream of a Pipeline build.
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
</licenses>

<properties>
<workflow.version>1.1</workflow.version>
<workflow.version>1.4.2</workflow.version>
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

build did not return an appropriate value in the ancient 1.1 release. 1.4.2 is the newest compatible with 1.580.x.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 16, 2016

This pull request originates from a CloudBees employee. At CloudBees, we require that all pull requests be reviewed by other CloudBees employees before we seek to have the change accepted. If you want to learn more about our process please see this explanation.

@jenkinsadmin
Copy link
Member

Thank you for this pull request! Please check this document for how the Jenkins project handles pull requests.

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
<properties>
<jenkins.version>1.580.1</jenkins.version>
<java.level>6</java.level>
<workflow.version>1.1</workflow.version>
<workflow.version>1.4.2</workflow.version>
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

build did not return an appropriate value in the ancient 1.1 release. 1.4.2 is the newest compatible with 1.580.x.

@jglick
Copy link
Member Author

jglick commented Apr 9, 2016

@ikedam, @apemberton ping

@ikedam
Copy link
Member

ikedam commented Apr 9, 2016

@jglick
The test looks good.
It demonstrates that SpecificBuildSelector and build(p) provides a feature like DownstreamBuildSelector.

But I don't think this change needs to be merged as this doesn't provide any fixes or new features of copyartifact, but contains changes for dependencies that isn't important for copyartifact itself.

Do you mean upgrading copyartifact-plugin should force also to upgrade pipeline-plugin?

@jglick
Copy link
Member Author

jglick commented Apr 9, 2016

Well 1.4.2 is a rather old version. Anyway this is only test scope so it has no effect on users.

@ikedam
Copy link
Member

ikedam commented Apr 10, 2016

Anyway this is only test scope so it has no effect on users.

You're absolutely right.
Sorry, I misunderstood that copyartifact has an optional dependency to pipeline.
I found core provides everything necessary to support pipeline.

I think this is ready to merge.
Though this looks a test for pipiline's build method rather than a test for copyartifact, I think it makes sense also as a test to use selector with pipilene.

@ikedam ikedam merged commit c7f1b41 into jenkinsci:master Apr 10, 2016
@jglick jglick deleted the workflow-copyFromDownstreamBuild-JENKINS-33577 branch April 11, 2016 15:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants