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.

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

jira: make links() more reliable #810

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

edvbld
Copy link
Member

@edvbld edvbld commented Sep 9, 2020

Hi all,

please review this patch that makes JiraIssue.links() a bit more reliable in the face of unexpected HTTP codes. I also took the liberty to use an ArrayList instead of concatenating Streams.

Thanks,
Erik


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Reviewers

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/810/head:pull/810
$ git checkout pull/810

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 9, 2020

👋 Welcome back ehelin! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr label Sep 9, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Sep 9, 2020

@edvbld To determine the appropriate audience for reviewing this pull request, one or more labels corresponding to different subsystems will normally be applied automatically. However, no automatic labelling rule matches the changes in this pull request.

In order to have an RFR email automatically sent to the correct mailing list, you will need to add one or more labels manually using the /label add "label" command. The following labels are valid: bots build cli libs skara-dev skara-extra.

Copy link
Member

@rwestberg rwestberg left a comment

Looks good!

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Sep 9, 2020

@edvbld This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. In addition to the automated checks, the change must also fulfill all project specific requirements

After integration, the commit message will be:

jira: make links() more reliable

Reviewed-by: rwestberg
  • If you would like to add a summary, use the /summary command.
  • To credit additional contributors, use the /contributor command.
  • To add additional solved issues, use the /issue command.

Since the source branch of this PR was last updated there have been 3 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ab9de3d: 625: Proxy build plugin should work on URLs without scheme
  • d23a796: 599: Unverified reviews should not count towards jcheck
  • ea4920d: Properly check for user not found in Jira

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid automatic rebasing, please merge master into your branch, and then specify the current head hash when integrating, like this: /integrate ab9de3dc5acfe2d839035b238855413d7008e8d2.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label Sep 9, 2020
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Sep 9, 2020

Webrevs

@edvbld
Copy link
Member Author

@edvbld edvbld commented Sep 9, 2020

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Sep 9, 2020
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated and removed ready rfr labels Sep 9, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Sep 9, 2020

@edvbld Since your change was applied there have been 3 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ab9de3d: 625: Proxy build plugin should work on URLs without scheme
  • d23a796: 599: Unverified reviews should not count towards jcheck
  • ea4920d: Properly check for user not found in Jira

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 985532d.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

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