Use jenkins own mechanisms for archiving / managing artifacts

[pipapo-sl]

Jenkins robot-plugin holds its own copy of build artifacts under builds\x\robot-plugin and it has no possibility to mark old builds to delete. So the folder 'robot-plugin' is never cleaned up. (Jenkins offers a configurable Build Discarder Plugin for this). And the folder may be a copy of existing archived test results (Jenkins offers archiveArtifacts plugin for this).

When introducing following argument:

• archiveDirName (default: robot-plugin)
  it is possible so suppress copying test results by jenkins robot-plugin and point to the 'archive' dir of jenkins to use jenkins own mechanisms for archiving / managing test results. Using archiveArtifacts it is possible to archive the results and using build discarder plugin it is possible to clean up old results.

1. Archive results: archiveArtifacts artifacts: "${env.JOB_NAME} ${BUILD_ID}/**/*.*"
2. Set archiveDirName to 'archive' in the robot step:
   robot( outputPath : "", passThreshold : 100, unstableThreshold: 100, outputFileName : "${env.JOB_NAME} ${BUILD_ID}/output.xml", reportFileName : "${env.JOB_NAME} ${BUILD_ID}/report.html", logFileName : "${env.JOB_NAME} ${BUILD_ID}/log.html", otherFiles : "**/*", archiveDirName : "archive" )

[asimell]

Hi @pipapo-sl , I know it's been a while, but there's been a few merged PRs since this was created which have created merge conflicts. Could you resolve those?

EDIT: Nevermind, I handled those.

[asimell]

Hi @pipapo-sl,

The current implementation doesn't provide the new configuration parameters in the snippet generator for pipelines or freestyle jobs. Could you please add necessary configurations to the jelly files with appropriate help texts?

[pipapo-sl]

Hi @asimell,
Sorry I am relative new to github, you were faster merging conflicts. Added new parameters to jelly config including descriptions, but just saw, that disableCopyFilesToBuildDir is not really needed, it may be implicated in class RobotPublisher, by doing:
if (!DEFAULT_JENKINS_ARCHIVE_DIR.equals(getArchiveDirName())) {
instead of:
if (!getDisableCopyFilesToBuildDir()) {
What do you think?

[asimell]

@pipapo-sl Feel free to modify your PR. Less new stuff means less stuff to maintain in the future. If the same functionality can be achieved by introducing less new configurations, I think it's worth doing.

[pipapo-sl]

@asimell OK, thank you. I changed the code, including the original description of the proposal. Now the name 'disableCopyFilesToBuildDir' of the branch lost its meaning :).
Unfortunately I was a little too fast and my commit 610046f broke the checks, which are fixed with commit eb08acb, but they do not start again.