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

[FIXED JENKINS-45909] ReverseBuildTrigger.upstreamProjects should be null safe #2966

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 12, 2017

Conversation

4 participants
@abayer
Member

abayer commented Aug 4, 2017

See JENKINS-45909.

This probably merits a downstream test in workflow-job or workflow-multibranch, but I'm not sure it's worth bumping the core version in one of those for just a test.

Proposed changelog entries

  • JENKINS-45909, don't fail dependency graph calculation for null ReverseBuildTrigger#upstreamProjects.

Submitter checklist

  • JIRA issue is well described
  • Changelog entry appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developer, depending on the change). Examples
    * Use the Internal: prefix if the change has no user-visible impact (API, test frameworks, etc.)
  • Appropriate autotests or explanation to why this change has no tests
  • For dependency updates: links to external changelogs and, if possible, full diffs

Desired reviewers

@reviewbybees
@jenkinsci/code-reviewers

@reviewbybees

This comment has been minimized.

reviewbybees commented Aug 4, 2017

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.

@abayer abayer requested a review from jglick Aug 4, 2017

@oleg-nenashev

Although it fixes the issue, It does not help much from the API PoV.

I recommend making ReverseBuildTrigger#getUpstreamProjects null-safe and swutching the code to it. Bonus karma for Javadoc and annotations of course

@jglick

jglick approved these changes Aug 4, 2017

IIRC there was no known way to reproduce, so a downstream test would probably be too artificial to be useful.

@oleg-nenashev

This comment has been minimized.

Member

oleg-nenashev commented Aug 12, 2017

I have created https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-46161 as a follow-up
Special 😿 to @abayer for not responding to review comments, but I feel that it important to have a fix in any case.

@oleg-nenashev oleg-nenashev merged commit 72e2e9a into jenkinsci:master Aug 12, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-head This commit looks good
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment