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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[JENKINS-72988] validate displayname against items in the same ItemGroup #9152

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

[JENKINS-72988] validate displayname against items in the same ItemGroup #9152

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

mawinter69
Copy link
Contributor

@mawinter69 mawinter69 commented Apr 9, 2024 •
edited

The check if a displayname collides with an existing job name or displayname was always performing the check against the root. So if one wanted to use a displayname for a job inside a folder the check would wrongly fail if the name is used by a something at root level and not fail when it is used by another item in the folder

depends on #9150

See JENKINS-72988.

Testing done

Manual testing

Proposed changelog entries

  • JENKINS-72988, validate displayname only against items in the same ItemGroup

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Edit tasklist title
Beta Give feedback Tasklist Submitter checklist, more options

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?
Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.
  1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
    Options
  2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
    Options
  3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
    Options
  4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
    Options
  5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
    Options
  6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
    Options
  7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
    Options
  8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.
    Options

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Edit tasklist title
Beta Give feedback Tasklist Maintainer checklist, more options

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?
Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.
  1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
    Options
  2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
    Options
  3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
    Options
  4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
    Options
  5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
    Options
  6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).
    Options

@mawinter69
[JENKINS-72988] validate displayname only against items in same ItemG…
eb9afd1 
…roup

The check if a displayname collides with an existing job name or
displayname was always performing the check against the root. So if one
wanted to use a displayname for a job inside a folder the check would
wrongly fail if the name is used by a something at root level and not
fail when it is used by another item in the folder
@mawinter69
adjust method name to avoid conflict with old implementations
0e06d65
@daniel-beck daniel-beck changed the title [JENKINS-72988] validate displayname only against items in the same ItemGroup [JENKINS-72988] validate displayname against items in the same ItemGroup Apr 10, 2024
@daniel-beck daniel-beck added the on-hold This pull request depends on another event/release, and it cannot be merged right now label Apr 10, 2024
@daniel-beck
Copy link
Member

depends on #9150

This PR looks like it should go through quicker (straightforward bug fix, no dependency on downstream PRs), so a different order would be better IMO.

@mawinter69
Copy link
Contributor Author

depends on #9150

This PR looks like it should go through quicker (straightforward bug fix, no dependency on downstream PRs), so a different order would be better IMO.

the change has no real effect without the other PR. The doCheckDisplayName is only called in AbstractProject (which is not a TopLevelItem so it can't really call the new method), otherwise it is only called from plugins afaik. Maybe it makes sense to merge the 2 changes as the new method in the TopLevelItemDescriptor is what should be used instead of doCheckDisplayName

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
on-hold This pull request depends on another event/release, and it cannot be merged right now
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
2 participants
@mawinter69 @daniel-beck