Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Michael Kobit]

We haven't upgraded to the latest plugin yet (partially because of this) so 
no workaround yet. We are going to do a test cycle in the next few weeks. I 
opened https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-45860 a few days ago to 
hopefully understand how to implement it since I originally implemented 
support for OrganizationFolder in the Job DSL plugin.

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:28:38 AM UTC-5, Tim Downey wrote:
>
> Hi Michael -- I finally go around to upgrading as well and am facing the 
> same problem.  Have you worked around this?  Are you just supplying the XML 
> directly?
>
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 8:39:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Kobit wrote:
>>
>> Finally got some time to try it out (sorry!) and I know the PR has 
>> already been merged, but UI looks great, and the contextual help menus 
>> make it easy to pick up. Awesome job!
>>
>> Only thing I noticed is no built-in Job DSL support - we use the Job DSL 
>> entirely to create and setup all of our Organization folders, and I didn't 
>> see any generated DSL methods under 
>> */plugin/job-dsl/api-viewer/index.html#path/organizationFolder-organizations-bitbucket*
>> .
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:43 AM Mark Waite  wrote:
>>
>>> I think I have detected the difference between by multi-branch pipelines 
>>> with GitHub branch sources.
>>>
>>> The problem job is a GitHub private repository (
>>> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/jenkins-bugs-private), while the working 
>>> job is a GitHub public repository (
>>> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/jenkins-bugs) .
>>>
>>> When I configure the private repository job, it presents the list of 
>>> repositories but only includes public repositories in the list.  The 
>>> credentials are valid and are used in other jobs, but it is as though the 
>>> list of repositories is not being refreshed with the credentials.
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:27 AM Mark Waite  wrote:
>>>
 I'm using latest betas (as far as I can tell).  The GitHub source is 
 now working in the cases that were failing previously.  Thanks very much 
 for that!

 Unfortunately, when I open the "Configure" page for one of my 
 multi-branch pipeline job that is using GitHub as a branch source, it 
 reverts the repository choice to the top of the list, instead of showing 
 the originally selected repository.

 When I open the "Configure" page for another of my multi-branch 
 pipeline jobs that is using GitHub as a branch source, it retains the 
 repository choice.

 Unfortunately, I don't know what is different between those two cases 
 of a GitHub branch source for a multi-branch pipeline.

 I'll let you know if I identify key attributes which make the two cases 
 behave differently.

 Mark Waite 


 On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:04:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Neale wrote:
>
> I retested with latest betas and looking good (binary compat, 
> migration etc). 
>
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:46:49 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 June 2017 at 06:13, Kevin Burnett  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is so good. :)
>>>
>>
>> Great to hear it. I love feedback (+ve or -ve beats none)
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and 
>>> functionality gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>>>
>>
>> w00t
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]" 
>>> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on 
>>> production as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better 
>>> now with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen 
>>> originally posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean 
>>> there 
>>> might be newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release 
>>> versions of these plugins this week. :)
>>>
>>> Thanks a ton!
>>> -KB
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly 
>>> wrote:



 On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:

> I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the 
> Bitbucket source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need 
> steps to 
> see that.
>

 Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you 
 have GitHub and Bitbucket
  

>
> I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should 
> be italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so 
> that the 
> user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They 
> seem to 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Tim Downey]

Hi Michael -- I finally go around to upgrading as well and am facing the 
same problem.  Have you worked around this?  Are you just supplying the XML 
directly?

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 8:39:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Kobit wrote:
>
> Finally got some time to try it out (sorry!) and I know the PR has already 
> been merged, but UI looks great, and the contextual help menus make it 
> easy to pick up. Awesome job!
>
> Only thing I noticed is no built-in Job DSL support - we use the Job DSL 
> entirely to create and setup all of our Organization folders, and I didn't 
> see any generated DSL methods under 
> */plugin/job-dsl/api-viewer/index.html#path/organizationFolder-organizations-bitbucket*
> .
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:43 AM Mark Waite  > wrote:
>
>> I think I have detected the difference between by multi-branch pipelines 
>> with GitHub branch sources.
>>
>> The problem job is a GitHub private repository (
>> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/jenkins-bugs-private), while the working 
>> job is a GitHub public repository (
>> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/jenkins-bugs) .
>>
>> When I configure the private repository job, it presents the list of 
>> repositories but only includes public repositories in the list.  The 
>> credentials are valid and are used in other jobs, but it is as though the 
>> list of repositories is not being refreshed with the credentials.
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:27 AM Mark Waite > > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using latest betas (as far as I can tell).  The GitHub source is now 
>>> working in the cases that were failing previously.  Thanks very much for 
>>> that!
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, when I open the "Configure" page for one of my 
>>> multi-branch pipeline job that is using GitHub as a branch source, it 
>>> reverts the repository choice to the top of the list, instead of showing 
>>> the originally selected repository.
>>>
>>> When I open the "Configure" page for another of my multi-branch pipeline 
>>> jobs that is using GitHub as a branch source, it retains the repository 
>>> choice.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I don't know what is different between those two cases of 
>>> a GitHub branch source for a multi-branch pipeline.
>>>
>>> I'll let you know if I identify key attributes which make the two cases 
>>> behave differently.
>>>
>>> Mark Waite 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:04:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Neale wrote:

 I retested with latest betas and looking good (binary compat, migration 
 etc). 

 On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:46:49 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26 June 2017 at 06:13, Kevin Burnett  
> wrote:
>
>> This is so good. :)
>>
>
> Great to hear it. I love feedback (+ve or -ve beats none)
>  
>
>>
>> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality 
>> gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>>
>
> w00t
>  
>
>>
>> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]" 
>> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on 
>> production as soon as possible.
>>
>> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better 
>> now with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen 
>> originally posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there 
>> might be newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release 
>> versions of these plugins this week. :)
>>
>> Thanks a ton!
>> -KB
>>
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:
>>>
 I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket 
 source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see 
 that.

>>>
>>> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you 
>>> have GitHub and Bitbucket
>>>  
>>>

 I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should 
 be italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so 
 that the 
 user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They 
 seem to 
 be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were 
 categories into which settings would be placed.

>>>
>>> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that 
>>> risk affecting form binding.
>>>  
>>>

 Mark Waite


 On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places 
> where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Michael Kobit]

Finally got some time to try it out (sorry!) and I know the PR has already
been merged, but UI looks great, and the contextual help menus make it easy
to pick up. Awesome job!

Only thing I noticed is no built-in Job DSL support - we use the Job DSL
entirely to create and setup all of our Organization folders, and I didn't
see any generated DSL methods under
*/plugin/job-dsl/api-viewer/index.html#path/organizationFolder-organizations-bitbucket*
.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:43 AM Mark Waite 
wrote:

> I think I have detected the difference between by multi-branch pipelines
> with GitHub branch sources.
>
> The problem job is a GitHub private repository (
> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/jenkins-bugs-private), while the working
> job is a GitHub public repository (
> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/jenkins-bugs) .
>
> When I configure the private repository job, it presents the list of
> repositories but only includes public repositories in the list.  The
> credentials are valid and are used in other jobs, but it is as though the
> list of repositories is not being refreshed with the credentials.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:27 AM Mark Waite 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm using latest betas (as far as I can tell).  The GitHub source is now
>> working in the cases that were failing previously.  Thanks very much for
>> that!
>>
>> Unfortunately, when I open the "Configure" page for one of my
>> multi-branch pipeline job that is using GitHub as a branch source, it
>> reverts the repository choice to the top of the list, instead of showing
>> the originally selected repository.
>>
>> When I open the "Configure" page for another of my multi-branch pipeline
>> jobs that is using GitHub as a branch source, it retains the repository
>> choice.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't know what is different between those two cases of
>> a GitHub branch source for a multi-branch pipeline.
>>
>> I'll let you know if I identify key attributes which make the two cases
>> behave differently.
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:04:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Neale wrote:
>>>
>>> I retested with latest betas and looking good (binary compat, migration
>>> etc).
>>>
>>> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:46:49 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:



 On 26 June 2017 at 06:13, Kevin Burnett 
 wrote:

> This is so good. :)
>

 Great to hear it. I love feedback (+ve or -ve beats none)


>
> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality
> gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>

 w00t


>
> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]"
> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on
> production as soon as possible.
>
> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better
> now with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen
> originally posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there
> might be newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release
> versions of these plugins this week. :)
>
> Thanks a ton!
> -KB
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:
>>
>>> I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket
>>> source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see 
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you
>> have GitHub and Bitbucket
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be
>>> italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the
>>> user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem 
>>> to
>>> be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were
>>> categories into which settings would be placed.
>>>
>>
>> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that
>> risk affecting form binding.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:

 The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places
 where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the
 adaptation that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think 
 that's
 the right approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use 
 case.

 Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline
 that uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was 
 resolved
 by removing the multiple-scms plugin.  

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

I think I have detected the difference between by multi-branch pipelines
with GitHub branch sources.

The problem job is a GitHub private repository (
https://github.com/MarkEWaite/jenkins-bugs-private), while the working job
is a GitHub public repository (https://github.com/MarkEWaite/jenkins-bugs) .

When I configure the private repository job, it presents the list of
repositories but only includes public repositories in the list.  The
credentials are valid and are used in other jobs, but it is as though the
list of repositories is not being refreshed with the credentials.

Mark Waite

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:27 AM Mark Waite 
wrote:

> I'm using latest betas (as far as I can tell).  The GitHub source is now
> working in the cases that were failing previously.  Thanks very much for
> that!
>
> Unfortunately, when I open the "Configure" page for one of my multi-branch
> pipeline job that is using GitHub as a branch source, it reverts the
> repository choice to the top of the list, instead of showing the originally
> selected repository.
>
> When I open the "Configure" page for another of my multi-branch pipeline
> jobs that is using GitHub as a branch source, it retains the repository
> choice.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know what is different between those two cases of a
> GitHub branch source for a multi-branch pipeline.
>
> I'll let you know if I identify key attributes which make the two cases
> behave differently.
>
> Mark Waite
>
>
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:04:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Neale wrote:
>>
>> I retested with latest betas and looking good (binary compat, migration
>> etc).
>>
>> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:46:49 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 June 2017 at 06:13, Kevin Burnett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This is so good. :)

>>>
>>> Great to hear it. I love feedback (+ve or -ve beats none)
>>>
>>>

 The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality
 gives me everything that I was hoping for.

>>>
>>> w00t
>>>
>>>

 I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]"
 behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on
 production as soon as possible.

 Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better
 now with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen
 originally posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there
 might be newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release
 versions of these plugins this week. :)

 Thanks a ton!
 -KB

 On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:
>
>> I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket
>> source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see 
>> that.
>>
>
> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you
> have GitHub and Bitbucket
>
>
>>
>> I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be
>> italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the
>> user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem 
>> to
>> be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were
>> categories into which settings would be placed.
>>
>
> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that
> risk affecting form binding.
>
>
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
>>> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places
>>> where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the
>>> adaptation that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think 
>>> that's
>>> the right approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use 
>>> case.
>>>
>>> Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline
>>> that uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was 
>>> resolved
>>> by removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still
>>> there, along with a stack trace that starts with this:
>>>
>>> Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression
>>> evaluate
>>> WARNING: Caught exception evaluating:
>>> descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs) in
>>> /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure. Reason:
>>> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
>>> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
>>> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down
>>> list
>>> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
>>> 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

I'm using latest betas (as far as I can tell).  The GitHub source is now 
working in the cases that were failing previously.  Thanks very much for 
that!

Unfortunately, when I open the "Configure" page for one of my multi-branch 
pipeline job that is using GitHub as a branch source, it reverts the 
repository choice to the top of the list, instead of showing the originally 
selected repository.

When I open the "Configure" page for another of my multi-branch pipeline 
jobs that is using GitHub as a branch source, it retains the repository 
choice.

Unfortunately, I don't know what is different between those two cases of a 
GitHub branch source for a multi-branch pipeline.

I'll let you know if I identify key attributes which make the two cases 
behave differently.

Mark Waite 

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:04:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Neale wrote:
>
> I retested with latest betas and looking good (binary compat, migration 
> etc). 
>
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:46:49 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 June 2017 at 06:13, Kevin Burnett  wrote:
>>
>>> This is so good. :)
>>>
>>
>> Great to hear it. I love feedback (+ve or -ve beats none)
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality 
>>> gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>>>
>>
>> w00t
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]" 
>>> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on 
>>> production as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better now 
>>> with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen originally 
>>> posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there might be 
>>> newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release versions of 
>>> these plugins this week. :)
>>>
>>> Thanks a ton!
>>> -KB
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:



 On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:

> I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket 
> source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see 
> that.
>

 Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you have 
 GitHub and Bitbucket
  

>
> I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be 
> italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the 
> user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem 
> to 
> be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were 
> categories into which settings would be placed.
>

 Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that 
 risk affecting form binding.
  

>
> Mark Waite
>
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places 
>> where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the 
>> adaptation that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think 
>> that's 
>> the right approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use 
>> case.
>>
>> Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline 
>> that uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was 
>> resolved 
>> by removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still 
>> there, along with a stack trace that starts with this:
>>
>> Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression 
>> evaluate
>> WARNING: Caught exception evaluating: 
>> descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs) in 
>> /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure. Reason: 
>> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
>> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
>>  
>> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
>> list
>> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
>> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
>>  
>> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
>> list
>> at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
>> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
>> at 
>> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
>> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
>> at 
>> org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$VelMethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
>> at 
>> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
>> at 
>> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTReference.java:83)

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Michael Neale]

I retested with latest betas and looking good (binary compat, migration 
etc). 

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:46:49 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26 June 2017 at 06:13, Kevin Burnett  > wrote:
>
>> This is so good. :)
>>
>
> Great to hear it. I love feedback (+ve or -ve beats none)
>  
>
>>
>> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality 
>> gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>>
>
> w00t
>  
>
>>
>> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]" 
>> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on 
>> production as soon as possible.
>>
>> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better now 
>> with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen originally 
>> posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there might be 
>> newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release versions of 
>> these plugins this week. :)
>>
>> Thanks a ton!
>> -KB
>>
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:
>>>
 I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket 
 source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see that.

>>>
>>> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you have 
>>> GitHub and Bitbucket
>>>  
>>>

 I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be 
 italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the 
 user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem to 
 be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were 
 categories into which settings would be placed.

>>>
>>> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that risk 
>>> affecting form binding.
>>>  
>>>

 Mark Waite


 On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places 
> where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the 
> adaptation that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's 
> the right approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.
>
> Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline 
> that uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was 
> resolved 
> by removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still 
> there, along with a stack trace that starts with this:
>
> Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression 
> evaluate
> WARNING: Caught exception evaluating: 
> descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs) in 
> /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure. Reason: 
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl 
> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
> list
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl 
> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
> list
> at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
> at 
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$VelMethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTReference.java:83)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(ASTReference.java:57)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.value(ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(ExpressionImpl.java:80)
> at 
> hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(ExpressionFactory2.java:74)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.evaluate(EscapingExpression.java:24)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(ExpressionScript.java:66)
> at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)
>
> I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet, 
> but wanted to alert you about it.  I won't investigate further on it 
> until 
> after the end of the working day today.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:32:54 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>> How do you find the new UI 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

On 26 June 2017 at 06:13, Kevin Burnett  wrote:

> This is so good. :)
>

Great to hear it. I love feedback (+ve or -ve beats none)


>
> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality
> gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>

w00t


>
> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]"
> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on
> production as soon as possible.
>
> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better now
> with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen originally
> posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there might be
> newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release versions of
> these plugins this week. :)
>
> Thanks a ton!
> -KB
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:
>>
>>> I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket
>>> source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see that.
>>>
>>
>> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you have
>> GitHub and Bitbucket
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be
>>> italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the
>>> user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem to
>>> be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were
>>> categories into which settings would be placed.
>>>
>>
>> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that risk
>> affecting form binding.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:

 The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places
 where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the
 adaptation that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's
 the right approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.

 Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline that
 uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was resolved by
 removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still there,
 along with a stack trace that starts with this:

 Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression
 evaluate
 WARNING: Caught exception evaluating: 
 descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs)
 in /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure.
 Reason: java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
 org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
 doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down
 list
 java.lang.IllegalStateException: class org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_b
 ranch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl doesn't have the
 doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down list
 at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
 at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
 at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMe
 thodAccessorImpl.java:43)
 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
 at org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$Vel
 MethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
 at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
 at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTRefer
 ence.java:83)
 at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(ASTReferen
 ce.java:57)
 at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.value(
 ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
 at org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(ExpressionIm
 pl.java:80)
 at hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(Expression
 Factory2.java:74)
 at org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.evaluate(
 EscapingExpression.java:24)
 at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(Expressio
 nScript.java:66)
 at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)

 I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet,
 but wanted to alert you about it.  I won't investigate further on it until
 after the end of the working day today.

 Mark Waite

 On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:32:54 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> How do you find the new UI compared with the previous one?
>
> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

Check the drop-box link...
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0 git,
mercurial, github and bitbucket are all up as far as -alpha-4

-alpha-4 is looking very near a beta release candidate (just need to
confirm I have all the code reviewers happy)

I will not be releasing the GA versions this week as we have some internal
quality bars that need to be met

On 26 June 2017 at 06:28, Michael Kobit  wrote:

> I'm going to have time to do this today. Are there newer alphas available?
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 08:13 Kevin Burnett 
> wrote:
>
>> This is so good. :)
>>
>> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality
>> gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>>
>> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]"
>> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on
>> production as soon as possible.
>>
>> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better now
>> with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen originally
>> posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there might be
>> newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release versions of
>> these plugins this week. :)
>>
>> Thanks a ton!
>> -KB
>>
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:
>>>
 I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket
 source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see that.

>>>
>>> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you have
>>> GitHub and Bitbucket
>>>
>>>

 I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be
 italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the
 user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem to
 be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were
 categories into which settings would be placed.

>>>
>>> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that risk
>>> affecting form binding.
>>>
>>>
>>
 Mark Waite


 On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places
> where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the
> adaptation that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's
> the right approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.
>
> Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline
> that uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was resolved
> by removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still
> there, along with a stack trace that starts with this:
>
> Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression
> evaluate
> WARNING: Caught exception evaluating: 
> descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs)
> in /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure.
> Reason: java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down
> list
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_
> branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl doesn't have the
> doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down list
> at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$
> VelMethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(
> ASTMethod.java:104)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(
> ASTReference.java:83)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(
> ASTReference.java:57)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.
> value(ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(
> ExpressionImpl.java:80)
> at hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(
> ExpressionFactory2.java:74)
> at org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.
> evaluate(EscapingExpression.java:24)
> at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(
> ExpressionScript.java:66)
> at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)
>
> I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet,
> but wanted to alert you 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

The experimental update center includes a new version of the git plugin and
the mercurial plugin.

Per Kevin Burnett's comment, please don't release it this week.  I need
more testing time.

Mark Waite

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:29 AM Michael Kobit  wrote:

> I'm going to have time to do this today. Are there newer alphas available?
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 08:13 Kevin Burnett 
> wrote:
>
>> This is so good. :)
>>
>> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality
>> gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>>
>> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]"
>> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on
>> production as soon as possible.
>>
>> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better now
>> with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen originally
>> posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there might be
>> newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release versions of
>> these plugins this week. :)
>>
>> Thanks a ton!
>> -KB
>>
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:
>>>
 I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket
 source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see that.

>>>
>>> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you have
>>> GitHub and Bitbucket
>>>
>>>

 I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be
 italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the
 user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem to
 be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were
 categories into which settings would be placed.

>>>
>>> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that risk
>>> affecting form binding.
>>>
>>>
>>
 Mark Waite


 On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places
> where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the
> adaptation that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's
> the right approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.
>
> Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline
> that uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was resolved
> by removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still
> there, along with a stack trace that starts with this:
>
> Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression
> evaluate
> WARNING: Caught exception evaluating:
> descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs) in
> /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure. Reason:
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down
> list
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down
> list
> at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> at
> org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$VelMethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
> at
> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTReference.java:83)
> at
> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(ASTReference.java:57)
> at
> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.value(ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
> at
> org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(ExpressionImpl.java:80)
> at
> hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(ExpressionFactory2.java:74)
> at
> org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.evaluate(EscapingExpression.java:24)
> at
> org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(ExpressionScript.java:66)
> at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)
>
> I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet,
> but wanted to alert you about it.  I won't investigate further on it until
> after the end of the working day today.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:32:54 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Michael Kobit]

I'm going to have time to do this today. Are there newer alphas available?

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 08:13 Kevin Burnett  wrote:

> This is so good. :)
>
> The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality
> gives me everything that I was hoping for.
>
> I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]"
> behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on
> production as soon as possible.
>
> Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better now
> with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen originally
> posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there might be
> newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release versions of
> these plugins this week. :)
>
> Thanks a ton!
> -KB
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:
>>
>>> I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket
>>> source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see that.
>>>
>>
>> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you have
>> GitHub and Bitbucket
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be
>>> italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the
>>> user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem to
>>> be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were
>>> categories into which settings would be placed.
>>>
>>
>> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that risk
>> affecting form binding.
>>
>>
>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:

 The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places
 where I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the
 adaptation that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's
 the right approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.

 Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline that
 uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was resolved by
 removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still there,
 along with a stack trace that starts with this:

 Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression
 evaluate
 WARNING: Caught exception evaluating:
 descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs) in
 /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure. Reason:
 java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
 org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
 doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down
 list
 java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
 org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
 doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down
 list
 at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
 at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
 at
 sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
 at
 org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$VelMethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
 at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
 at
 org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTReference.java:83)
 at
 org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(ASTReference.java:57)
 at
 org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.value(ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
 at
 org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(ExpressionImpl.java:80)
 at
 hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(ExpressionFactory2.java:74)
 at
 org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.evaluate(EscapingExpression.java:24)
 at
 org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(ExpressionScript.java:66)
 at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)

 I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet,
 but wanted to alert you about it.  I won't investigate further on it until
 after the end of the working day today.

 Mark Waite

 On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:32:54 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> How do you find the new UI compared with the previous one?
>
> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
>>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Kevin Burnett]

This is so good. :)

The pre and post diffs looked right, and the new UI and functionality gives 
me everything that I was hoping for.

I'm going to remove the "discover pull requests from [everywhere]" 
behaviors and select "Only branches that are also filed as PRs" on 
production as soon as possible.

Michael Neale mentioned that one issue he had seen "does look better now 
with the new version." I used the plugin versions that Stephen originally 
posted on June 20, but I take Michael's comment to mean there might be 
newer versions. Please make this irrelevant by issuing release versions of 
these plugins this week. :)

Thanks a ton!
-KB

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:45:44 PM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  
> wrote:
>
>> I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket 
>> source for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see that.
>>
>
> Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you have 
> GitHub and Bitbucket
>  
>
>>
>> I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be 
>> italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the 
>> user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem to 
>> be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were 
>> categories into which settings would be placed.
>>
>
> Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that risk 
> affecting form binding.
>  
>
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
>>> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places where 
>>> I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the adaptation 
>>> that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's the right 
>>> approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.
>>>
>>> Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline that 
>>> uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was resolved by 
>>> removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still there, 
>>> along with a stack trace that starts with this:
>>>
>>> Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression evaluate
>>> WARNING: Caught exception evaluating: 
>>> descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs) in 
>>> /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure. Reason: 
>>> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
>>> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl 
>>> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
>>> list
>>> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
>>> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl 
>>> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
>>> list
>>> at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
>>> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
>>> at 
>>> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
>>> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
>>> at 
>>> org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$VelMethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
>>> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
>>> at 
>>> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTReference.java:83)
>>> at 
>>> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(ASTReference.java:57)
>>> at 
>>> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.value(ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
>>> at 
>>> org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(ExpressionImpl.java:80)
>>> at 
>>> hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(ExpressionFactory2.java:74)
>>> at 
>>> org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.evaluate(EscapingExpression.java:24)
>>> at 
>>> org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(ExpressionScript.java:66)
>>> at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet, but 
>>> wanted to alert you about it.  I won't investigate further on it until 
>>> after the end of the working day today.
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:32:54 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:

 How do you find the new UI compared with the previous one?

 -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Jenkins Developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/c2e110d7-f929-461d-8595-273e8e543d89%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

On 23 June 2017 at 17:24, Mark Waite  wrote:

> I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket source
> for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see that.
>

Shouldn't... may just be a bug in the drop down populator when you have
GitHub and Bitbucket


>
> I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be
> italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the
> user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem to
> be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were
> categories into which settings would be placed.
>

Cannot style the drop-down menu without significant JS changes that risk
affecting form binding.


>
> Mark Waite
>
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places where
>> I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the adaptation
>> that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's the right
>> approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.
>>
>> Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline that
>> uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was resolved by
>> removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still there,
>> along with a stack trace that starts with this:
>>
>> Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression evaluate
>> WARNING: Caught exception evaluating: 
>> descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs)
>> in /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure.
>> Reason: java.lang.IllegalStateException: class
>> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl
>> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down
>> list
>> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_b
>> ranch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl doesn't have the
>> doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down list
>> at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
>> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
>> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMe
>> thodAccessorImpl.java:43)
>> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
>> at org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$Vel
>> MethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
>> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
>> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTRefer
>> ence.java:83)
>> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(ASTReferen
>> ce.java:57)
>> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.value(
>> ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
>> at org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(ExpressionIm
>> pl.java:80)
>> at hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(Expression
>> Factory2.java:74)
>> at org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.evaluate(
>> EscapingExpression.java:24)
>> at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(Expressio
>> nScript.java:66)
>> at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)
>>
>> I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet, but
>> wanted to alert you about it.  I won't investigate further on it until
>> after the end of the working day today.
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:32:54 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you find the new UI compared with the previous one?
>>>
>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Jenkins Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/jenkinsci-dev/c2e110d7-f929-461d-8595-273e8e543d89%
> 40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/CA%2BnPnMz3HsWzoaL6FfOQV0zX4SBDXd%3Dg44ppaZt3feojkzet8A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

I see duplicate entries in the "Add' configuration of the Bitbucket source 
for "Checkout over ssh".  Let me know if you need steps to see that.

I also wonder if the text "General", "Git" and "Bitbucket" should be 
italicized, or bold, or separated with dashes, or something, so that the 
user has a concept that things will be appearing under them.  They seem to 
be standard text currently, and it wasn't obvious to me that they were 
categories into which settings would be placed.

Mark Waite

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:58:52 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places where 
> I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the adaptation 
> that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's the right 
> approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.
>
> Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline that 
> uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was resolved by 
> removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still there, 
> along with a stack trace that starts with this:
>
> Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression evaluate
> WARNING: Caught exception evaluating: 
> descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs) in 
> /job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure. Reason: 
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl 
> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
> list
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
> org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl 
> doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
> list
> at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
> at 
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$VelMethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTReference.java:83)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(ASTReference.java:57)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.value(ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
> at org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(ExpressionImpl.java:80)
> at 
> hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(ExpressionFactory2.java:74)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.evaluate(EscapingExpression.java:24)
> at 
> org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(ExpressionScript.java:66)
> at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)
>
> I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet, but 
> wanted to alert you about it.  I won't investigate further on it until 
> after the end of the working day today.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:32:54 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>> How do you find the new UI compared with the previous one?
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/c2e110d7-f929-461d-8595-273e8e543d89%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

The UI experience has been great for me in the two or three places where 
I've used it.  I was a little surprised (and pleased) with the adaptation 
that the local branch setting is now a toggle.  I think that's the right 
approach, since (as far as I can tell) that is the 99% use case.

Earlier I reported an NPE when configuring a multi-branch pipeline that 
uses GitHub as source instead of Git as source.  The NPE was resolved by 
removing the multiple-scms plugin.  Unfortunately, the 404 is still there, 
along with a stack trace that starts with this:

Jun 23, 2017 9:51:38 AM hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression evaluate
WARNING: Caught exception evaluating: 
descriptor.calcFillSettings(field,attrs) in 
/job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/configure. Reason: 
java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl 
doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
list
java.lang.IllegalStateException: class 
org.jenkinsci.plugins.github_branch_source.GitHubSCMSource$DescriptorImpl 
doesn't have the doFillCredentialsIdItems method for filling a drop-down 
list
at hudson.model.Descriptor.calcFillSettings(Descriptor.java:412)
at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor578.invoke(Unknown Source)
at 
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
at 
org.apache.commons.jexl.util.introspection.UberspectImpl$VelMethodImpl.invoke(UberspectImpl.java:258)
at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTMethod.execute(ASTMethod.java:104)
at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.execute(ASTReference.java:83)
at org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReference.value(ASTReference.java:57)
at 
org.apache.commons.jexl.parser.ASTReferenceExpression.value(ASTReferenceExpression.java:51)
at org.apache.commons.jexl.ExpressionImpl.evaluate(ExpressionImpl.java:80)
at 
hudson.ExpressionFactory2$JexlExpression.evaluate(ExpressionFactory2.java:74)
at 
org.apache.commons.jelly.parser.EscapingExpression.evaluate(EscapingExpression.java:24)
at 
org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ExpressionScript.run(ExpressionScript.java:66)
at org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.ScriptBlock.run(ScriptBlock.java:95)

I'm not sure how to provide a repeatable condition for that bug yet, but 
wanted to alert you about it.  I won't investigate further on it until 
after the end of the working day today.

Mark Waite

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:32:54 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> How do you find the new UI compared with the previous one?
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/f22a03c7-6d9a-42b2-bc2f-58acc3d0fb5c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

On 23 June 2017 at 14:18, Joseph P  wrote:

> Upgrade on "prod like" went smooth :)
>

w00t!


> Could we move the question for behaviours closer to the behaviours text?
>
>
> 
>
I do not think we can... I think it is a property of f:entry... we could
perhaps get somebody to give us some CSS to make it align top

https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/blob/df21a13cd6d86c01381bd79f31894e98a79f3e90/war/src/main/webapp/css/style.css#L278-L281

is the style that needs to change

>
> 
>
>
>
>
> Den torsdag den 22. juni 2017 kl. 08.10.41 UTC+2 skrev Joseph P:
>>
>> I will try and get around to testing it today.
>>
>> Den onsdag den 21. juni 2017 kl. 20.30.03 UTC+2 skrev Stephen Connolly:
>>>
>>> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>>>
>>> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9
 MvM82sMa?dl=0

 SHA1 checksums:
 d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
 a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi

 SHA256 checksums:
 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
 branch-api.hpi
 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248
 git.hpi
 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
 github-branch-source.hpi
 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
 mercurial.hpi
 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
 scm-api.hpi

 -Stephen

 On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly 
 wrote:

> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>
> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should
> be live in an hour or two)
>
> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/sc
> m-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/dow
> nload/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
> git 3.4.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/dow
> nload/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/dow
> nload/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/dow
> nload/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-
> branch-source.hpi
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbuc
> ket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>
> Recommended testing procedure:
>
> 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your
> production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins
> you are using*.
> 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone
> multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do 
> not
> care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
> 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
> multibranch projects.
> 4. Wait for the queue to complete
> 5. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
> 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
> 7. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
> 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
> multibranch projects.
> 9. Wait for the queue to complete
> 10. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and
> smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> You are looking for three classes of difference:
>
> a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision
> is the same)

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

Question inline for a specific plugin, but the question may be general 
enough to merit discussion.

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 7:29:33 AM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>
> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should be 
> live in an hour or two)
>
> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1 
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1 
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
> git 3.4.0-alpha-1 
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1 
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>
> Recommended testing procedure:
>
> 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your 
> production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins you 
> are using*.
> 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone 
> multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do not 
> care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
> 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone 
> multibranch projects.
> 4. Wait for the queue to complete
> 5. Run the script in the system script console: 
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and 
> save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
> 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
> 7. Run the script in the system script console: 
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and 
> save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
> 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone 
> multibranch projects.
> 9. Wait for the queue to complete
> 10. Run the script in the system script console: 
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and 
> save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and 
> smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> You are looking for three classes of difference:
>
> a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision is 
> the same)
> b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the branch 
> is still present in the backing scm)
> c. branch jobs that have suddenly appeared for no good reason (i.e. the 
> branch was there before but not found) [expecting some of these for 
> BitBucket PRs from forks, but only after configuration updated, saved and 
> another rescan performed]
>
> My expectation is that nobody will have these kinds of issues.
>
> Also try out the new UI to see what you think.
>
> Please report back your testing results either way. Don't forget to report 
> back your UI feedback too ;-)
>
> After doing that test in a throw-away Jenkins, you can *optionally* repeat 
> the test on a *more* production*-like* (emphasis on being production-like 
> not production) instance... but this is code that has not yet completed 
> code review (hence -alpha-1 not -beta-1) so it is at your own risk. There 
> are additional issues to be aware when using more production-like 
> environment:
>
> a. You may have builds that were assuming branches were full clones, now 
> the refspec is tightly reduced to minimize clone time. If you need a full 
> clone you will need to add the "Advanced Clone" behaviour.
>

The git client plugin has tests which assume its branches are full clones. 
 It uses that assumption to reduce the setup time for submodule tests, 
tests of tagging, and more.  It also uses the global pipeline library in 
its Jenkinsfile so that the Jenkinsfile is a single line "buildPlugin".

I very much like the single line "buildPlugin" Jenkinsfile.  I'm willing 
(if necessary) to rework the git client plugin tests so that it no longer 
assumes branches are full clones.  Unfortunately, time spent reworking 
those tests will be time that is not spent reviewing pull requests or 
testing new ideas.

Is there a way that I can keep the convenience and power of buildPlugin() 
without burdening other plugin developers with the weight of a full clone?

Mark Waite
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/77d6566b-1df0-4fec-aa46-5c677ba0a1cb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

JENKINS-45085 captures the problem I was seeing.  The multiple-scms plugin 
causes a null pointer exception in my multi-branch pipeline job when 
opening the configure URL of the job.  That problem is visible with Jenkins 
2.46.3 and 2.60.1.

Since my environment does not need or use the multiple-scms plugin, I 
removed it from my Docker image and resolved the problem.

Mark Waite

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:10:45 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> False alarm, or rather, accurate alarm that has nothing to do with the 
> alpha releases of the plugins.
>
> I see an NPE in the console log with the released versions of all plugins, 
> using Jenkins 2.46.3.  It is an issue, but not an issue with the alpha 
> releases of the plugins.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:13:17 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, fat fingers.
>>
>> I have a multi-branch pipeline job defined to read from 
>> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/git-client-plugin using Git with username 
>> / password credentials.  It works as expected with the alpha versions of 
>> the plugins.  When I "configure" that job, it shows the project repository, 
>> and shows the credentials as "MarkEWaite github username/password".
>>
>> I have a multi-branch pipeline job defined to read from 
>> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/git-client-plugin using GitHub with 
>> username / password credentials.  It works as expected with the alpha 
>> versions of the plugins.  However, when I configure that job, it shows the 
>> GitHub credentials box and then reports HTTP Error 404 - problem accessing 
>> job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/null : Reason: not 
>> found.  
>>
>> I assume something is causing that trailing "null" on the end of the 
>> request URL, though I don't know what would do that.  Is that likely 
>> related to the alpha versions of the plugins, or should I look elsewhere 
>> for the difference?
>>
>> Those two pipeline jobs are both able to be configured in my docker 
>> instance that runs released versions of all the plugins (except the git 
>> plugin and the git client plugin, which always seem to be in some 
>> pre-release state in that docker instance).
>>
>> Suggestions of where I should search?
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:04:53 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
>>> My docker image that I've upgraded is showing an unexpected behavior in 
>>> a GitHub (not git) 
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:19:24 PM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:

 Just a quick status update.

 In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and 
 reviewing my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots 
 of 
 feature parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure 
 Git branch source

 I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be 
 another big PR

 Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin

 Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta

 I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.

 Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side 
 effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found 
 and fixed bugs)
 -- 
 Sent from my phone

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/7dca457a-6089-4bb2-8b0a-5db183b2fdca%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

False alarm, or rather, accurate alarm that has nothing to do with the 
alpha releases of the plugins.

I see an NPE in the console log with the released versions of all plugins, 
using Jenkins 2.46.3.  It is an issue, but not an issue with the alpha 
releases of the plugins.

Mark Waite

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:13:17 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> Sorry, fat fingers.
>
> I have a multi-branch pipeline job defined to read from 
> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/git-client-plugin using Git with username / 
> password credentials.  It works as expected with the alpha versions of the 
> plugins.  When I "configure" that job, it shows the project repository, and 
> shows the credentials as "MarkEWaite github username/password".
>
> I have a multi-branch pipeline job defined to read from 
> https://github.com/MarkEWaite/git-client-plugin using GitHub with 
> username / password credentials.  It works as expected with the alpha 
> versions of the plugins.  However, when I configure that job, it shows the 
> GitHub credentials box and then reports HTTP Error 404 - problem accessing 
> job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/null : Reason: not 
> found.  
>
> I assume something is causing that trailing "null" on the end of the 
> request URL, though I don't know what would do that.  Is that likely 
> related to the alpha versions of the plugins, or should I look elsewhere 
> for the difference?
>
> Those two pipeline jobs are both able to be configured in my docker 
> instance that runs released versions of all the plugins (except the git 
> plugin and the git client plugin, which always seem to be in some 
> pre-release state in that docker instance).
>
> Suggestions of where I should search?
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:04:53 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>> My docker image that I've upgraded is showing an unexpected behavior in a 
>> GitHub (not git) 
>>
>> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:19:24 PM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a quick status update.
>>>
>>> In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and 
>>> reviewing my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots of 
>>> feature parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure 
>>> Git branch source
>>>
>>> I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be another 
>>> big PR
>>>
>>> Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin
>>>
>>> Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta
>>>
>>> I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.
>>>
>>> Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side 
>>> effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found 
>>> and fixed bugs)
>>> -- 
>>> Sent from my phone
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/ae1066c6-1963-4331-a745-b4766cb6eaf3%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

Sorry, fat fingers.

I have a multi-branch pipeline job defined to read from 
https://github.com/MarkEWaite/git-client-plugin using Git with username / 
password credentials.  It works as expected with the alpha versions of the 
plugins.  When I "configure" that job, it shows the project repository, and 
shows the credentials as "MarkEWaite github username/password".

I have a multi-branch pipeline job defined to read from 
https://github.com/MarkEWaite/git-client-plugin using GitHub with username 
/ password credentials.  It works as expected with the alpha versions of 
the plugins.  However, when I configure that job, it shows the GitHub 
credentials box and then reports HTTP Error 404 - problem accessing 
job/Git-Client-Folder/job/git-client-pipeline-github/null : Reason: not 
found.  

I assume something is causing that trailing "null" on the end of the 
request URL, though I don't know what would do that.  Is that likely 
related to the alpha versions of the plugins, or should I look elsewhere 
for the difference?

Those two pipeline jobs are both able to be configured in my docker 
instance that runs released versions of all the plugins (except the git 
plugin and the git client plugin, which always seem to be in some 
pre-release state in that docker instance).

Suggestions of where I should search?

Mark Waite

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:04:53 AM UTC-6, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> My docker image that I've upgraded is showing an unexpected behavior in a 
> GitHub (not git) 
>
> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:19:24 PM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>> Just a quick status update.
>>
>> In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and 
>> reviewing my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots of 
>> feature parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure 
>> Git branch source
>>
>> I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be another 
>> big PR
>>
>> Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin
>>
>> Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta
>>
>> I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.
>>
>> Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side 
>> effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found 
>> and fixed bugs)
>> -- 
>> Sent from my phone
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/9f33951d-3599-42e3-a4e6-bd180fd78473%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

Mark, can you share details win me via hipchat?


On 22 June 2017 at 08:04, Mark Waite  wrote:

> My docker image that I've upgraded is showing an unexpected behavior in a
> GitHub (not git)
>
>
> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:19:24 PM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>> Just a quick status update.
>>
>> In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and
>> reviewing my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots of
>> feature parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure
>> Git branch source
>>
>> I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be another
>> big PR
>>
>> Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin
>>
>> Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta
>>
>> I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.
>>
>> Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side
>> effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found
>> and fixed bugs)
>> --
>> Sent from my phone
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Jenkins Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/jenkinsci-users/642d0696-e348-4924-85cd-49f69b6d8658%40googlegroups.
> com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/CA%2BnPnMwgJ7vwP5qSMZpFN0%3DNxamE2mQmP7V2nV3feROTPU%2B%2B_g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

My docker image that I've upgraded is showing an unexpected behavior in a 
GitHub (not git) 

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:19:24 PM UTC-6, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> Just a quick status update.
>
> In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and reviewing 
> my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots of feature 
> parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure Git 
> branch source
>
> I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be another 
> big PR
>
> Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin
>
> Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta
>
> I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.
>
> Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side 
> effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found 
> and fixed bugs)
> -- 
> Sent from my phone
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/642d0696-e348-4924-85cd-49f69b6d8658%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 7:19 AM Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In any case we are probably more interested in other Bitbucket users as at
> most you (Mark) would end up using the CloudBees testing Bitbucket Server
> instance which is the same one I used and we are more interested in testing
> a variety of configurations not multiple people testing the same
> configuration ;-)
>
>
My bitbucket testing is typically limited to the bitbucket.org account that
I've used for git plugin testing.  I'm sure that type of account (and
server) will be exercised by others.

I hadn't added that plugin to my standard set of installed plugins.  I'll
add it now.

Mark Waite


> On 22 June 2017 at 14:17, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's now known as the BitBucket Branch Source plugin... but the plugin
>> short-name is cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source
>>
>> On 22 June 2017 at 13:41, Mark Waite  wrote:
>>
>>> I used the experimental update center to update to the latest beta
>>> plugin versions.  I didn't have access from my Jenkins to the CloudBees
>>> BitBucket Source Branch plugin, so I'm ignoring it.
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:56 AM Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 So yes, it's github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-3 that is required for as
 good as possible inter-op with BlueOcean.

 Note that when using BlueOcean with GitHub Org Folders you will fall
 victim to JENKINS-45058 irrespective of the version of GitHub Branch Source
 that you are using... the migration to traits makes this issue even more
 evident as now it is no longer the includes / excludes / build branches /
 build branches that are PRs / build origin PR head / build origin PR merge
 / build fork PR head / build fork PR merge / pattern fields that are
 subject to being reset but also the new traits... so if you configure say a
 Git LFS checkout behaviour and then add a repository with Blue Ocean, that
 Git LFS behaviour will be removed by BlueOcean

 https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1188 or
 https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1187 fix that bug
 in BlueOcean, but there are some questions that need resolving before those
 PRs can be finalized.

 https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1186 shows that the
 changes (as of 2.2.0-alpha-2 + ) do not introduce any regressions in the
 interaction with BlueOcean... though obviously as JENKINS-45058 was always
 present, it remains so.

 On 22 June 2017 at 01:27, Michael Neale  wrote:

> It does look better now with the new version. I confirmed running a
> scan didn't make anything go away.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:20:37 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 04:29, Michael Neale 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I saw all jobs disappear in a github org folder that blue ocean
>>> created previously, when I triggered a scan.
>>>
>>> (it also doesn't seem to trigger scans if I add change the pattern,
>>> or run the wizard again).
>>>
>>
>> I need to investigate some of the hacks BO is using.
>>
>> I suspect this is probably just one deprecated constructor that needs
>> tweaking
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:39:30 AM UTC+10, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
 I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today
 and will capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow 
 morning
 and capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those 
 until
 tomorrow evening or this weekend.

 Mark Waite

 On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
 stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>
 On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
 If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>>
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0
>>
>> SHA1 checksums:
>> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
>> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
>> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
>> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
>> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>>
>> SHA256 checksums:
>> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
>> 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

In any case we are probably more interested in other Bitbucket users as at
most you (Mark) would end up using the CloudBees testing Bitbucket Server
instance which is the same one I used and we are more interested in testing
a variety of configurations not multiple people testing the same
configuration ;-)

On 22 June 2017 at 14:17, Stephen Connolly 
wrote:

> It's now known as the BitBucket Branch Source plugin... but the plugin
> short-name is cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source
>
> On 22 June 2017 at 13:41, Mark Waite  wrote:
>
>> I used the experimental update center to update to the latest beta plugin
>> versions.  I didn't have access from my Jenkins to the CloudBees BitBucket
>> Source Branch plugin, so I'm ignoring it.
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:56 AM Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So yes, it's github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-3 that is required for as
>>> good as possible inter-op with BlueOcean.
>>>
>>> Note that when using BlueOcean with GitHub Org Folders you will fall
>>> victim to JENKINS-45058 irrespective of the version of GitHub Branch Source
>>> that you are using... the migration to traits makes this issue even more
>>> evident as now it is no longer the includes / excludes / build branches /
>>> build branches that are PRs / build origin PR head / build origin PR merge
>>> / build fork PR head / build fork PR merge / pattern fields that are
>>> subject to being reset but also the new traits... so if you configure say a
>>> Git LFS checkout behaviour and then add a repository with Blue Ocean, that
>>> Git LFS behaviour will be removed by BlueOcean
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1188 or
>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1187 fix that bug in
>>> BlueOcean, but there are some questions that need resolving before those
>>> PRs can be finalized.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1186 shows that the
>>> changes (as of 2.2.0-alpha-2 + ) do not introduce any regressions in the
>>> interaction with BlueOcean... though obviously as JENKINS-45058 was always
>>> present, it remains so.
>>>
>>> On 22 June 2017 at 01:27, Michael Neale  wrote:
>>>
 It does look better now with the new version. I confirmed running a
 scan didn't make anything go away.


 On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:20:37 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>
> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 04:29, Michael Neale 
> wrote:
>
>> I saw all jobs disappear in a github org folder that blue ocean
>> created previously, when I triggered a scan.
>>
>> (it also doesn't seem to trigger scans if I add change the pattern,
>> or run the wizard again).
>>
>
> I need to investigate some of the hacks BO is using.
>
> I suspect this is probably just one deprecated constructor that needs
> tweaking
>
>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:39:30 AM UTC+10, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today
>>> and will capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow 
>>> morning
>>> and capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until
>>> tomorrow evening or this weekend.
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> How many people have been able to try this so far?

>>> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly <
 stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9
> MvM82sMa?dl=0
>
> SHA1 checksums:
> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>
> SHA256 checksums:
> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
> branch-api.hpi
> 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
> 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248
> git.hpi
> 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
> github-branch-source.hpi
> 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
> mercurial.hpi
> 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

It's now known as the BitBucket Branch Source plugin... but the plugin
short-name is cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source

On 22 June 2017 at 13:41, Mark Waite  wrote:

> I used the experimental update center to update to the latest beta plugin
> versions.  I didn't have access from my Jenkins to the CloudBees BitBucket
> Source Branch plugin, so I'm ignoring it.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:56 AM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So yes, it's github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-3 that is required for as
>> good as possible inter-op with BlueOcean.
>>
>> Note that when using BlueOcean with GitHub Org Folders you will fall
>> victim to JENKINS-45058 irrespective of the version of GitHub Branch Source
>> that you are using... the migration to traits makes this issue even more
>> evident as now it is no longer the includes / excludes / build branches /
>> build branches that are PRs / build origin PR head / build origin PR merge
>> / build fork PR head / build fork PR merge / pattern fields that are
>> subject to being reset but also the new traits... so if you configure say a
>> Git LFS checkout behaviour and then add a repository with Blue Ocean, that
>> Git LFS behaviour will be removed by BlueOcean
>>
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1188 or
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1187 fix that bug in
>> BlueOcean, but there are some questions that need resolving before those
>> PRs can be finalized.
>>
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1186 shows that the
>> changes (as of 2.2.0-alpha-2 + ) do not introduce any regressions in the
>> interaction with BlueOcean... though obviously as JENKINS-45058 was always
>> present, it remains so.
>>
>> On 22 June 2017 at 01:27, Michael Neale  wrote:
>>
>>> It does look better now with the new version. I confirmed running a scan
>>> didn't make anything go away.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:20:37 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:


 On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 04:29, Michael Neale 
 wrote:

> I saw all jobs disappear in a github org folder that blue ocean
> created previously, when I triggered a scan.
>
> (it also doesn't seem to trigger scans if I add change the pattern, or
> run the wizard again).
>

 I need to investigate some of the hacks BO is using.

 I suspect this is probably just one deprecated constructor that needs
 tweaking


>
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:39:30 AM UTC+10, Mark Waite wrote:
>
>> I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and
>> will capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning 
>> and
>> capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until
>> tomorrow evening or this weekend.
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>>>
>> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_
 aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0

 SHA1 checksums:
 d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
 a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi

 SHA256 checksums:
 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
 branch-api.hpi
 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248
 git.hpi
 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
 github-branch-source.hpi
 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
 mercurial.hpi
 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
 scm-api.hpi

 -Stephen

>>> On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly 
 wrote:

>>> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>
> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links
> should be live in an hour or two)
>
> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/
> scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

I used the experimental update center to update to the latest beta plugin
versions.  I didn't have access from my Jenkins to the CloudBees BitBucket
Source Branch plugin, so I'm ignoring it.

Mark Waite

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:56 AM Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So yes, it's github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-3 that is required for as
> good as possible inter-op with BlueOcean.
>
> Note that when using BlueOcean with GitHub Org Folders you will fall
> victim to JENKINS-45058 irrespective of the version of GitHub Branch Source
> that you are using... the migration to traits makes this issue even more
> evident as now it is no longer the includes / excludes / build branches /
> build branches that are PRs / build origin PR head / build origin PR merge
> / build fork PR head / build fork PR merge / pattern fields that are
> subject to being reset but also the new traits... so if you configure say a
> Git LFS checkout behaviour and then add a repository with Blue Ocean, that
> Git LFS behaviour will be removed by BlueOcean
>
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1188 or
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1187 fix that bug in
> BlueOcean, but there are some questions that need resolving before those
> PRs can be finalized.
>
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1186 shows that the
> changes (as of 2.2.0-alpha-2 + ) do not introduce any regressions in the
> interaction with BlueOcean... though obviously as JENKINS-45058 was always
> present, it remains so.
>
> On 22 June 2017 at 01:27, Michael Neale  wrote:
>
>> It does look better now with the new version. I confirmed running a scan
>> didn't make anything go away.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:20:37 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 04:29, Michael Neale  wrote:
>>>
 I saw all jobs disappear in a github org folder that blue ocean created
 previously, when I triggered a scan.

 (it also doesn't seem to trigger scans if I add change the pattern, or
 run the wizard again).

>>>
>>> I need to investigate some of the hacks BO is using.
>>>
>>> I suspect this is probably just one deprecated constructor that needs
>>> tweaking
>>>
>>>

 On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:39:30 AM UTC+10, Mark Waite wrote:

> I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and
> will capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning and
> capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until
> tomorrow evening or this weekend.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
 How many people have been able to try this so far?
>>
> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly 
>> wrote:
>>
> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0
>>>
>>> SHA1 checksums:
>>> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
>>> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
>>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
>>> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
>>> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
>>> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>>>
>>> SHA256 checksums:
>>> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
>>> branch-api.hpi
>>> 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
>>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>> 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248
>>> git.hpi
>>> 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
>>> github-branch-source.hpi
>>> 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
>>> mercurial.hpi
>>> 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
>>> scm-api.hpi
>>>
>>> -Stephen
>>>
>> On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> OK! Here we are... testing time!

 These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links
 should be live in an hour or two)

 scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
 branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
 git 3.4.0-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
 mercurial 2.0-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

So yes, it's github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-3 that is required for as
good as possible inter-op with BlueOcean.

Note that when using BlueOcean with GitHub Org Folders you will fall victim
to JENKINS-45058 irrespective of the version of GitHub Branch Source that
you are using... the migration to traits makes this issue even more evident
as now it is no longer the includes / excludes / build branches / build
branches that are PRs / build origin PR head / build origin PR merge /
build fork PR head / build fork PR merge / pattern fields that are subject
to being reset but also the new traits... so if you configure say a Git LFS
checkout behaviour and then add a repository with Blue Ocean, that Git LFS
behaviour will be removed by BlueOcean

https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1188 or
https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1187 fix that bug in
BlueOcean, but there are some questions that need resolving before those
PRs can be finalized.

https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1186 shows that the
changes (as of 2.2.0-alpha-2 + ) do not introduce any regressions in the
interaction with BlueOcean... though obviously as JENKINS-45058 was always
present, it remains so.

On 22 June 2017 at 01:27, Michael Neale  wrote:

> It does look better now with the new version. I confirmed running a scan
> didn't make anything go away.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:20:37 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 04:29, Michael Neale  wrote:
>>
>>> I saw all jobs disappear in a github org folder that blue ocean created
>>> previously, when I triggered a scan.
>>>
>>> (it also doesn't seem to trigger scans if I add change the pattern, or
>>> run the wizard again).
>>>
>>
>> I need to investigate some of the hacks BO is using.
>>
>> I suspect this is probably just one deprecated constructor that needs
>> tweaking
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:39:30 AM UTC+10, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
 I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and
 will capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning and
 capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until
 tomorrow evening or this weekend.

 Mark Waite

 On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
 stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>
 On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly 
> wrote:
>
 If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9
>> MvM82sMa?dl=0
>>
>> SHA1 checksums:
>> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
>> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
>> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
>> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
>> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>>
>> SHA256 checksums:
>> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
>> branch-api.hpi
>> 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>> 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248
>> git.hpi
>> 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
>> github-branch-source.hpi
>> 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
>> mercurial.hpi
>> 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
>> scm-api.hpi
>>
>> -Stephen
>>
> On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly 
>> wrote:
>>
> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>>>
>>> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should
>>> be live in an hour or two)
>>>
>>> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/sc
>>> m-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
>>> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/dow
>>> nload/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
>>> git 3.4.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/dow
>>> nload/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
>>> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/dow
>>> nload/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
>>> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/dow
>>> nload/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-
>>> branch-source.hpi
>>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
>>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbuc
>>> ket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-
>>> source.hpi
>>>
>>> Recommended testing procedure:
>>>
>>> 1. 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Michael Neale]

It does look better now with the new version. I confirmed running a scan 
didn't make anything go away. 


On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:20:37 PM UTC+10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>
> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 04:29, Michael Neale  > wrote:
>
>> I saw all jobs disappear in a github org folder that blue ocean created 
>> previously, when I triggered a scan. 
>>
>> (it also doesn't seem to trigger scans if I add change the pattern, or 
>> run the wizard again). 
>>
>
> I need to investigate some of the hacks BO is using.
>
> I suspect this is probably just one deprecated constructor that needs 
> tweaking
>
>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:39:30 AM UTC+10, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and 
>>> will capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning and 
>>> capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until 
>>> tomorrow evening or this weekend.
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> How many people have been able to try this so far?

>>> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly  
 wrote:

>>> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0
>
> SHA1 checksums:
> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c  
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>
> SHA256 checksums:
> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7  
> branch-api.hpi
> 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03  
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
> 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248  
> git.hpi
> 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20  
> github-branch-source.hpi
> 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c  
> mercurial.hpi
> 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481  
> scm-api.hpi
>
> -Stephen
>
 On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly  
> wrote:
>
 OK! Here we are... testing time!
>>
>> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should 
>> be live in an hour or two)
>>
>> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1 
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
>> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1 
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
>> git 3.4.0-alpha-1 
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
>> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1 
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
>> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>
>> Recommended testing procedure:
>>
>> 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your 
>> production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins 
>> you are using*.
>> 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone 
>> multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do 
>> not 
>> care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
>> 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone 
>> multibranch projects.
>> 4. Wait for the queue to complete
>> 5. Run the script in the system script console: 
>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 
>> and save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
>> 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
>> 7. Run the script in the system script console: 
>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 
>> and save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
>> 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone 
>> multibranch projects.
>> 9. Wait for the queue to complete
>> 10. Run the script in the system script console: 
>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 
>> and save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt
>>
>> At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 04:29, Michael Neale  wrote:

> I saw all jobs disappear in a github org folder that blue ocean created
> previously, when I triggered a scan.
>
> (it also doesn't seem to trigger scans if I add change the pattern, or run
> the wizard again).
>

I need to investigate some of the hacks BO is using.

I suspect this is probably just one deprecated constructor that needs
tweaking


>
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:39:30 AM UTC+10, Mark Waite wrote:
>
>> I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and
>> will capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning and
>> capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until
>> tomorrow evening or this weekend.
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>>>
>> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:


 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0

 SHA1 checksums:
 d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
 a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi

 SHA256 checksums:
 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
 branch-api.hpi
 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248
 git.hpi
 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
 github-branch-source.hpi
 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
 mercurial.hpi
 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
 scm-api.hpi

 -Stephen

>>> On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly 
 wrote:

>>> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>
> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should
> be live in an hour or two)
>
> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
> git 3.4.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>
> Recommended testing procedure:
>
> 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your
> production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins
> you are using*.
> 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone
> multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do 
> not
> care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
> 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
> multibranch projects.
> 4. Wait for the queue to complete
> 5. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
> 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
> 7. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
> 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
> multibranch projects.
> 9. Wait for the queue to complete
> 10. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and
> smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> You are looking for three classes of difference:
>
> a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision
> is the same)
> b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the
> branch is still present in the backing scm)
> c. branch jobs that have 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Michael Neale]

I saw all jobs disappear in a github org folder that blue ocean created 
previously, when I triggered a scan. 

(it also doesn't seem to trigger scans if I add change the pattern, or run 
the wizard again). 

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:39:30 AM UTC+10, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and will 
> capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning and 
> capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until 
> tomorrow evening or this weekend.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly  > wrote:
>
>> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>>
>> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly > > wrote:
>>
>>> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0
>>>
>>> SHA1 checksums:
>>> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
>>> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c  
>>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
>>> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
>>> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
>>> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>>>
>>> SHA256 checksums:
>>> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7  
>>> branch-api.hpi
>>> 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03  
>>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>> 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248  git.hpi
>>> 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20  
>>> github-branch-source.hpi
>>> 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c  
>>> mercurial.hpi
>>> 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481  
>>> scm-api.hpi
>>>
>>> -Stephen
>>>
>>> On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly >> > wrote:
>>>
 OK! Here we are... testing time!

 These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should be 
 live in an hour or two)

 scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1 
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
 branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1 
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
 git 3.4.0-alpha-1 
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
 mercurial 2.0-alpha-1 
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
 github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi

 Recommended testing procedure:

 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your 
 production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins 
 you are using*.
 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone 
 multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do 
 not 
 care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone 
 multibranch projects.
 4. Wait for the queue to complete
 5. Run the script in the system script console: 
 https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and 
 save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
 7. Run the script in the system script console: 
 https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and 
 save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone 
 multibranch projects.
 9. Wait for the queue to complete
 10. Run the script in the system script console: 
 https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and 
 save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt

 At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and 
 smoke-post-rescan.txt

 You are looking for three classes of difference:

 a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision 
 is the same)
 b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the 
 branch is still present in the backing scm)
 c. branch jobs that have suddenly appeared for no good reason (i.e. the 
 branch was there before but not found) [expecting some of these for 
 BitBucket PRs from forks, but only after configuration updated, saved and 
 another rescan performed]

 My expectation is that nobody will have 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

If you cannot get an ideal "before" that's ok... I'm just trying to make it
easier to know if you have and problematic rebuilds... if you can't get it
clean, best is better than none at all

On Wed 21 Jun 2017 at 20:34, Michael Kobit  wrote:

> Will be able to run this through tomorrow or Friday. The before state is
> harder to get because of how we manage onboarding consumers.
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 13:39 Mark Waite  wrote:
>
>> I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and
>> will capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning and
>> capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until
>> tomorrow evening or this weekend.
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>>>
>>> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:


 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0

 SHA1 checksums:
 d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
 a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi

 SHA256 checksums:
 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
 branch-api.hpi
 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248
 git.hpi
 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
 github-branch-source.hpi
 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
 mercurial.hpi
 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
 scm-api.hpi

 -Stephen

 On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly <
 stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>
> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should
> be live in an hour or two)
>
> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
> git 3.4.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>
> Recommended testing procedure:
>
> 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your
> production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins
> you are using*.
> 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone
> multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do 
> not
> care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
> 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
> multibranch projects.
> 4. Wait for the queue to complete
> 5. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
> 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
> 7. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
> 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
> multibranch projects.
> 9. Wait for the queue to complete
> 10. Run the script in the system script console:
> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
> save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and
> smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> You are looking for three classes of difference:
>
> a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision
> is the same)
> b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the
> branch is still present in the backing scm)
> c. branch jobs 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Michael Kobit]

Will be able to run this through tomorrow or Friday. The before state is
harder to get because of how we manage onboarding consumers.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 13:39 Mark Waite  wrote:

> I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and will
> capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning and
> capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until
> tomorrow evening or this weekend.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>>
>> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0
>>>
>>> SHA1 checksums:
>>> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
>>> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
>>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
>>> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
>>> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
>>> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>>>
>>> SHA256 checksums:
>>> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
>>> branch-api.hpi
>>> 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
>>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>> 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248  git.hpi
>>> 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
>>> github-branch-source.hpi
>>> 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
>>> mercurial.hpi
>>> 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
>>> scm-api.hpi
>>>
>>> -Stephen
>>>
>>> On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 OK! Here we are... testing time!

 These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should be
 live in an hour or two)

 scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
 branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
 git 3.4.0-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
 mercurial 2.0-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
 github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
 cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi

 Recommended testing procedure:

 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your
 production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins
 you are using*.
 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone
 multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do not
 care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
 multibranch projects.
 4. Wait for the queue to complete
 5. Run the script in the system script console:
 https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
 save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
 7. Run the script in the system script console:
 https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
 save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
 multibranch projects.
 9. Wait for the queue to complete
 10. Run the script in the system script console:
 https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
 save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt

 At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and
 smoke-post-rescan.txt

 You are looking for three classes of difference:

 a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision
 is the same)
 b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the
 branch is still present in the backing scm)
 c. branch jobs that have suddenly appeared for no good reason (i.e. the
 branch was there before but not found) [expecting some of these for
 BitBucket PRs from forks, but only after configuration updated, saved and
 another rescan performed]

 My expectation is that nobody will have these kinds of issues.

 Also try out the new UI to see what you think.

 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

I haven't tried it yet.  I'm configuring the "before" state today and will
capture its state, then will deploy the new code tomorrow morning and
capture the after state.  I won't do anything to compare those until
tomorrow evening or this weekend.

Mark Waite

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How many people have been able to try this so far?
>
> On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0
>>
>> SHA1 checksums:
>> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
>> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
>> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
>> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
>> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>>
>> SHA256 checksums:
>> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
>> branch-api.hpi
>> 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>> 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248  git.hpi
>> 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
>> github-branch-source.hpi
>> 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
>> mercurial.hpi
>> 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
>> scm-api.hpi
>>
>> -Stephen
>>
>> On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>>>
>>> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should be
>>> live in an hour or two)
>>>
>>> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1
>>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
>>> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1
>>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
>>> git 3.4.0-alpha-1
>>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
>>> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1
>>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
>>> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
>>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
>>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
>>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>>
>>> Recommended testing procedure:
>>>
>>> 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your
>>> production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins
>>> you are using*.
>>> 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone
>>> multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do not
>>> care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
>>> 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
>>> multibranch projects.
>>> 4. Wait for the queue to complete
>>> 5. Run the script in the system script console:
>>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
>>> save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
>>> 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
>>> 7. Run the script in the system script console:
>>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
>>> save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
>>> 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
>>> multibranch projects.
>>> 9. Wait for the queue to complete
>>> 10. Run the script in the system script console:
>>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
>>> save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt
>>>
>>> At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and
>>> smoke-post-rescan.txt
>>>
>>> You are looking for three classes of difference:
>>>
>>> a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision
>>> is the same)
>>> b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the branch
>>> is still present in the backing scm)
>>> c. branch jobs that have suddenly appeared for no good reason (i.e. the
>>> branch was there before but not found) [expecting some of these for
>>> BitBucket PRs from forks, but only after configuration updated, saved and
>>> another rescan performed]
>>>
>>> My expectation is that nobody will have these kinds of issues.
>>>
>>> Also try out the new UI to see what you think.
>>>
>>> Please report back your testing results either way. Don't forget to
>>> report back your UI feedback too ;-)
>>>
>>> After doing that test in a throw-away Jenkins, you can *optionally*
>>> repeat the test on a *more* production*-like* (emphasis on being
>>> production-like not production) instance... but this is code that has 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

How many people have been able to try this so far?

On Tue 20 Jun 2017 at 14:52, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0
>
> SHA1 checksums:
> d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
> 16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
> 234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
> a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
> 92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
> 04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi
>
> SHA256 checksums:
> 858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
> branch-api.hpi
> 8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
> 46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248  git.hpi
> 6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
> github-branch-source.hpi
> 173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
> mercurial.hpi
> 9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
> scm-api.hpi
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>>
>> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should be
>> live in an hour or two)
>>
>> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
>> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
>> git 3.4.0-alpha-1
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
>> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
>> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
>> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
>> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
>>
>> Recommended testing procedure:
>>
>> 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your
>> production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins you
>> are using*.
>> 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone
>> multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do not
>> care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
>> 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
>> multibranch projects.
>> 4. Wait for the queue to complete
>> 5. Run the script in the system script console:
>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
>> save the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
>> 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
>> 7. Run the script in the system script console:
>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
>> save the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
>> 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
>> multibranch projects.
>> 9. Wait for the queue to complete
>> 10. Run the script in the system script console:
>> https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and
>> save the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt
>>
>> At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and
>> smoke-post-rescan.txt
>>
>> You are looking for three classes of difference:
>>
>> a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision is
>> the same)
>> b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the branch
>> is still present in the backing scm)
>> c. branch jobs that have suddenly appeared for no good reason (i.e. the
>> branch was there before but not found) [expecting some of these for
>> BitBucket PRs from forks, but only after configuration updated, saved and
>> another rescan performed]
>>
>> My expectation is that nobody will have these kinds of issues.
>>
>> Also try out the new UI to see what you think.
>>
>> Please report back your testing results either way. Don't forget to
>> report back your UI feedback too ;-)
>>
>> After doing that test in a throw-away Jenkins, you can *optionally*
>> repeat the test on a *more* production*-like* (emphasis on being
>> production-like not production) instance... but this is code that has not
>> yet completed code review (hence -alpha-1 not -beta-1) so it is at your own
>> risk. There are additional issues to be aware when using more
>> production-like environment:
>>
>> a. You may have builds that were assuming branches were full clones, now
>> the refspec is tightly reduced to minimize clone time. If you need a full
>> clone you will need to add the "Advanced Clone" behaviour.
>> b. Mercurial repositories on Bitbucket Cloud do not support 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

If you are chomping at the bit, here are all the binaries:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/47weboatdzus22w/AADNF_aBniOyEeQi9MvM82sMa?dl=0

SHA1 checksums:
d9c346ac8db497a35825c7dbbb934842a2bc429a  branch-api.hpi
16da429f09fb585fd1d744809ee22c8d612fb62c
cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
234fa8eb88dad3241d620bb0116dd12fb9decbba  git.hpi
a68be01144f3045f81a5cf3c0bc60ad12f39b643  github-branch-source.hpi
92237097815b45260bb8b272caa9be9f92eb5085  mercurial.hpi
04c321420b3752a8d8b3af89cae1bf5934607b1c  scm-api.hpi

SHA256 checksums:
858ce20992c3f179b850c51297084b11fe7c4c173cf6d4d2e07bbfebf3e7
branch-api.hpi
8ebff7a3ec43df276d4b51d1e5bcb910bbe8eb4cd47a4be0e35f2f2ca1cd0e03
cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi
46cbbf11395df4a085829094d5a36dee7328aeba00d33e34b44aa0dcf9898248  git.hpi
6495a60f1bf0733d807f412434c6c2e24b7bba53fd7ce348ca5319ef38571f20
github-branch-source.hpi
173d12042fe8582efdb52e740f4e939b9daa05f181c6aaff31824337d519a31c
mercurial.hpi
9b58e9e6d13ce90a91b73f38142bf0977f244df9c52b948988f9d5bdc3785481
scm-api.hpi

-Stephen

On 20 June 2017 at 14:29, Stephen Connolly 
wrote:

> OK! Here we are... testing time!
>
> These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should be
> live in an hour or two)
>
> scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/
> scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
> branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/
> download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
> git 3.4.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-
> alpha-1/git.hpi
> mercurial 2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/
> download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
> github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1 https://updates.jenkins.io/
> download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/
> github-branch-source.hpi
> cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
> https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-
> bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-
> branch-source.hpi
>
> Recommended testing procedure:
>
> 1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your
> production environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins you
> are using*.
> 2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone
> multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do not
> care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
> 3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
> multibranch projects.
> 4. Wait for the queue to complete
> 5. Run the script in the system script console: https://gist.github.com/
> stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and save the output to
> smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
> 6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
> 7. Run the script in the system script console: https://gist.github.com/
> stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and save the output to
> smoke-post-upgrade.txt
> 8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
> multibranch projects.
> 9. Wait for the queue to complete
> 10. Run the script in the system script console: https://gist.github.com/
> stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and save the output to
> smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and
> smoke-post-rescan.txt
>
> You are looking for three classes of difference:
>
> a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision is
> the same)
> b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the branch
> is still present in the backing scm)
> c. branch jobs that have suddenly appeared for no good reason (i.e. the
> branch was there before but not found) [expecting some of these for
> BitBucket PRs from forks, but only after configuration updated, saved and
> another rescan performed]
>
> My expectation is that nobody will have these kinds of issues.
>
> Also try out the new UI to see what you think.
>
> Please report back your testing results either way. Don't forget to report
> back your UI feedback too ;-)
>
> After doing that test in a throw-away Jenkins, you can *optionally* repeat
> the test on a *more* production*-like* (emphasis on being production-like
> not production) instance... but this is code that has not yet completed
> code review (hence -alpha-1 not -beta-1) so it is at your own risk. There
> are additional issues to be aware when using more production-like
> environment:
>
> a. You may have builds that were assuming branches were full clones, now
> the refspec is tightly reduced to minimize clone time. If you need a full
> clone you will need to add the "Advanced Clone" behaviour.
> b. Mercurial repositories on Bitbucket Cloud do not support merge commits
> for PR building (yet)
> c. Credential domains were not being correctly compared so as a result -
> if you are using credential domains to help sort credentials - there may be
> cases where the credentials are now searched for in a 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Stephen Connolly]

OK! Here we are... testing time!

These are the plugins that are being covered: (download links should be
live in an hour or two)

scm-api 2.2.0-alpha-1
https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/scm-api/2.2.0-alpha-1/scm-api.hpi
branch-api 2.0.11-alpha-1
https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/branch-api/2.0.11-alpha-1/branch-api.hpi
git 3.4.0-alpha-1
https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/git/3.4.0-alpha-1/git.hpi
mercurial 2.0-alpha-1
https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/mercurial/2.0-alpha-1/mercurial.hpi
github-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/github-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/github-branch-source.hpi
cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source 2.2.0-alpha-1
https://updates.jenkins.io/download/plugins/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source/2.2.0-alpha-1/cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source.hpi

Recommended testing procedure:

1. Set up a throw-away Jenkins running a version similar to your production
environment *with the pre-upgrade versions of the plugins you are using*.
2. Set up ideally at least one organization folder and one standalone
multibranch project building your source code - to a first order you do not
care if the builds succeed or fail, only that the branches are found.
3. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
multibranch projects.
4. Wait for the queue to complete
5. Run the script in the system script console:
https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and save
the output to smoke-pre-upgrade.txt
6. Upgrade the relevant plugins, restart Jenkins.
7. Run the script in the system script console:
https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and save
the output to smoke-post-upgrade.txt
8. Trigger a scan / index of your organization folders and standalone
multibranch projects.
9. Wait for the queue to complete
10. Run the script in the system script console:
https://gist.github.com/stephenc/64ef58783b4438a126ad4e3f43062df1 and save
the output to smoke-post-rescan.txt

At this point, do a diff between smoke-pre-upgrade.txt and
smoke-post-rescan.txt

You are looking for three classes of difference:

a. branch jobs that have been rebuilt for no reason (i.e. the revision is
the same)
b. branch jobs that have disappeared for no good reason (i.e. the branch is
still present in the backing scm)
c. branch jobs that have suddenly appeared for no good reason (i.e. the
branch was there before but not found) [expecting some of these for
BitBucket PRs from forks, but only after configuration updated, saved and
another rescan performed]

My expectation is that nobody will have these kinds of issues.

Also try out the new UI to see what you think.

Please report back your testing results either way. Don't forget to report
back your UI feedback too ;-)

After doing that test in a throw-away Jenkins, you can *optionally* repeat
the test on a *more* production*-like* (emphasis on being production-like
not production) instance... but this is code that has not yet completed
code review (hence -alpha-1 not -beta-1) so it is at your own risk. There
are additional issues to be aware when using more production-like
environment:

a. You may have builds that were assuming branches were full clones, now
the refspec is tightly reduced to minimize clone time. If you need a full
clone you will need to add the "Advanced Clone" behaviour.
b. Mercurial repositories on Bitbucket Cloud do not support merge commits
for PR building (yet)
c. Credential domains were not being correctly compared so as a result - if
you are using credential domains to help sort credentials - there may be
cases where the credentials are now searched for in a different domain than
you had them in, so your domains may need reconfiguration to have the
credentials found by the multibranch project / org folder.
d. The pipeline snippitizer is generating $class style for some of the
GitHub and BitBucket specific behaviours, this is because my plan is to
further consolidate the implementations and have a single shared
implementation of each for these plugins, that way they can have a single
@Symbol annotation... if that is too difficult then the @Symbol would need
to be prefixed with gitHub / bitbucket respectively, e.g. gitHubBranches,
bitbucketBranches for the discover branches behaviour.


Thanks in advance

-Stephen

On 18 June 2017 at 15:53, Michael Kobit  wrote:

> I may be able to help with this as well.
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 17:28 Dan Tran  wrote:
>
>> I will give it a spin too.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 11:57:26 AM UTC-7, Kevin Burnett wrote:
>>>
>>> we'd be down to try that, yes. thanks for making these changes in a way
>>> that will benefit the product long-term!
>>>
>>> fingers are crossed that there's already a built-in way to pretend like
>>> pull requests don't exist! you're already building the branches; why also
>>> build the pull requests, eh? :)
>>>
>>> 

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Michael Kobit]

I may be able to help with this as well.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 17:28 Dan Tran  wrote:

> I will give it a spin too.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Dan
>
> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 11:57:26 AM UTC-7, Kevin Burnett wrote:
>>
>> we'd be down to try that, yes. thanks for making these changes in a way
>> that will benefit the product long-term!
>>
>> fingers are crossed that there's already a built-in way to pretend like
>> pull requests don't exist! you're already building the branches; why also
>> build the pull requests, eh? :)
>>
>> thanks!
>> kb
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 2:35:54 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to be part of the beta test.
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:19 PM Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Just a quick status update.

 In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and
 reviewing my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots of
 feature parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure
 Git branch source

 I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be
 another big PR

 Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin

 Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta

 I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.

 Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side
 effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found
 and fixed bugs)
 --
 Sent from my phone

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMxfYrZphgYDXFD3i%2Bo_7eDn7mn2qVrzJz6wFaoVkNmc%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
 
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Jenkins Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/5dd15ac2-b8a2-4ebd-bb4a-3bffa4815227%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/CALELY9GHbX4WuHdDKM8-bU1xR5voh-NsfHeQXNAxMjJpXkiwrw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Dan Tran]

I will give it a spin too.

Thanks

-Dan

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 11:57:26 AM UTC-7, Kevin Burnett wrote:
>
> we'd be down to try that, yes. thanks for making these changes in a way 
> that will benefit the product long-term!
>
> fingers are crossed that there's already a built-in way to pretend like 
> pull requests don't exist! you're already building the branches; why also 
> build the pull requests, eh? :)
>
> thanks!
> kb
>
>
> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 2:35:54 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to be part of the beta test.
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:19 PM Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just a quick status update.
>>>
>>> In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and 
>>> reviewing my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots of 
>>> feature parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure 
>>> Git branch source
>>>
>>> I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be another 
>>> big PR
>>>
>>> Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin
>>>
>>> Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta
>>>
>>> I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.
>>>
>>> Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side 
>>> effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found 
>>> and fixed bugs)
>>> -- 
>>> Sent from my phone
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMxfYrZphgYDXFD3i%2Bo_7eDn7mn2qVrzJz6wFaoVkNmc%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/5dd15ac2-b8a2-4ebd-bb4a-3bffa4815227%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Kevin Burnett]

we'd be down to try that, yes. thanks for making these changes in a way 
that will benefit the product long-term!

fingers are crossed that there's already a built-in way to pretend like 
pull requests don't exist! you're already building the branches; why also 
build the pull requests, eh? :)

thanks!
kb


On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 2:35:54 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> I'd like to be part of the beta test.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:19 PM Stephen Connolly  > wrote:
>
>> Just a quick status update.
>>
>> In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and 
>> reviewing my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots of 
>> feature parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure 
>> Git branch source
>>
>> I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be another 
>> big PR
>>
>> Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin
>>
>> Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta
>>
>> I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.
>>
>> Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side 
>> effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found 
>> and fixed bugs)
>> -- 
>> Sent from my phone
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Jenkins Developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMxfYrZphgYDXFD3i%2Bo_7eDn7mn2qVrzJz6wFaoVkNmc%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/fd613b68-3f87-4650-a3f9-6657d8f4179a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GitHub and Bitbucket branch source UI refactoring

[Mark Waite]

I'd like to be part of the beta test.

Mark Waite

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:19 PM Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just a quick status update.
>
> In final stages of this work now. Bobby is being a superstar and reviewing
> my 13k LoC change on the Bitbucket branch source - brings lots of feature
> parity with GitHub and adds the configuration ability of the pure Git
> branch source
>
> I am finalising the GitHub Branch Source changes... likely to be another
> big PR
>
> Then there's a 5k LoC change in the Git plugin
>
> Plan is to try and get all merged next week and cut a beta
>
> I'll be looking for people to help test at that stage.
>
> Please respond if you think you can help (lots of bugs fixed as a side
> effect of the refactoring - it makes things more easy to test => I found
> and fixed bugs)
> --
> Sent from my phone
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Jenkins Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMxfYrZphgYDXFD3i%2Bo_7eDn7mn2qVrzJz6wFaoVkNmc%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/CAO49JtGSd51psLxAV%2BVV0YkxR8gY5Tc58LuzWPWnasUGP-cAYg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.