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

Adapt to stapler/stapler#149 #3690

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Oct 11, 2018

Conversation

2 participants
@daniel-beck
Member

daniel-beck commented Oct 10, 2018

Downstream adaptation to stapler/stapler#149

Still basically tested by AbstractItemSecurity1114Test, even better than before (now we don't send the response manually, but have Stapler do it).

Proposed changelog entries

  • (Will be folded into Stapler upgrade message)

Submitter checklist

  • [n/a] JIRA issue is well described
  • [n/a] 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
@jglick

jglick approved these changes Oct 11, 2018

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ THE SOFTWARE.
<properties>
<staplerFork>true</staplerFork>
<stapler.version>1.254.2</stapler.version>
<stapler.version>1.255-null-1-SNAPSHOT</stapler.version>

This comment has been minimized.

@jglick

jglick Oct 11, 2018

Member

Pending JEP-305 integration, please use timestamped snapshots exclusively.

This comment has been minimized.

@daniel-beck

daniel-beck Oct 11, 2018

Member

I'm fairly sure I've observed problems in the past with Stapler, as we only explicitly specify two out of six components, and get the others transitively. Since the dependencies are only defined as -SNAPSHOT, we might end up with mismatched components.

So I'm doing one better: I have a unique version suffix. Probably should have called it stapler-PR149 but whatever.

This comment has been minimized.

@daniel-beck

daniel-beck Oct 11, 2018

Member

While I'm strictly speaking losing some of the reproducibility, I gain massive laziness points (no need to update downstream PR on upstream update, just rebuild).

This comment has been minimized.

@jglick

jglick Oct 11, 2018

Member

Pending JEP-305, the correct way to handle Stapler is to declare the version of each component separately.

This comment has been minimized.

@jglick

jglick Oct 12, 2018

Member

This was just FYI while you had snapshot dependencies, no longer relevant until next time.

@jglick jglick merged commit 371b9c1 into jenkinsci:master Oct 11, 2018

1 check passed

continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-merge This commit looks good
Details

olivergondza added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 23, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment