The suggestion to use “skipping” would only solve a small part of our problems. A problem which leads to a build failure before the first test case is started disturbs the statistics because the firmware to be tested wasn’t responsible for that. Moreover “skipping” is already used for test cases which meet hardware where they have to skip. We couldn’t differentiate these two things.

But nevertheless I wonder that a well-established behavior of JENKINS is changed that restrictively kind without unease that the customers could have a problem with that change.
I expected at least two things:

  • a configuration item to give the customer the control to switch back to the old behavior
  • a warning in the release notes about the new behavior (anyhow this would have spared the analysis time to find out the really reason of the new behavior, may be I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen such a warning)

With respect to the fact that the change in https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/8d8102036f4e52aada39db37c05025b9bb31516d seems more like a work around than a solution of JENKINS-23945 (may be JENKINS-24380 is one) it is questionable whether a lost of a well-established functionality can be accepted.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to