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-49377] Stop reading or writing BsiToken #60
Conversation
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.
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | |||
# for compatibility with old JobModel instances which still saved the bsiToken field: | |||
com.fortify.fod.parser.BsiToken |
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.
probably not required if you rename the field
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.
Depends on whether you want to maintain compatibility with existing settings or not.
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.
Actually I think you are right—both bsiToken
and bsiTokenOriginal
seem to have been added at the same time in #47 (which BTW offered no readResolve
), so any instance with bsiToken
should also bsiTokenOriginal
.
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.
🐝 , I'd guess
What's the concern here? If you don't save the token, the users settings are lost. I'm confused by the description of this PR. |
No they are not, because this plugin was already saving the |
…suffice to rename bsiToken so we never even try to deserialize a BsiToken instance.
PR build failed due to the INFRA issue from what I see. |
@oleg-nenashev Indeed ci.j.io had disk issue yesterday, it's working now |
Alright, I see the issue now. Thanks for the change on this to support 2.x. I'll get some testing done on this to make sure people don't have upgrade issues then publish with this fix in it. |
@mtgibbs Let me know once the fix is released. I will update https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Plugins+affected+by+fix+for+JEP-200 |
@mtgibbs gentler ping. |
@mtgibbs Jenkins LTS 2.107.1 will be released on March 14. Starting from this date we expects a significant number of users to start upgrading to the Jenkins versions with JEP-200 |
Yeah, we just got our FoD release out last week, so this week I should be able to get this tested and published. |
@oleg-nenashev I've published @jglick 's fix today. You should be able to update the ticket. 3.0.8 should be the version containing the change. |
@mtgibbs sorry for the response delay. Thanks a lot for the release! |
JENKINS-49377
Would be better if the parent POM were updated to something newer, and then
Jenkinsfile
couldand have a
JenkinsRule
-based test which would doconfigRoundtrip
onStaticAssessmentBuildStep
, as that would most likely reproduce the error with thesrc/main/
changes temporarily reverted.@reviewbybees esp. @oleg-nenashev