Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

Hi @Baptiste, No not at all - i realised i had misread your reply (that you were closing your pull request and not merging it) so i pulled by reply! I may try look at migrating that stuff out of the core, but that depends on time and whether that is pressing for our setup at work. Best

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

@Jonathan: Yes, but if you already cloned the repo, that's not necessary anymore. You basically need to run that test, possibly with your IDE, or on the CLI, for instance using mvn clean verify -Dtest=AtomicFileWriterTest -DfailIfNoTests=false As said before, I think you should follow James'

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

@Baptiste I am happy to do that. Basically we are looking at a clone and build? Best regards Jonathan (Github @trijonb) On Thursday, 19 April 2018 15:51:54 UTC+2, Baptiste Mathus wrote: > > Quick heads-up: I've finally closed my small PR and explained the > rationale there: >

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

Quick heads-up: I've finally closed my small PR and explained the rationale there: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/3397#issuecomment-382705447 TL;DR: @Jonathan or anyone using Windows, you're very welcome to improve this. James proposed an interesting path forward in

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

@Baptiste - yes, sorry about that - i need to be properly configured on JIRA as well. Just busy with a release coming up next week and trying to get up and running with the project in between. best jonathan On Tuesday, 17 April 2018 11:19:40 UTC+2, Baptiste Mathus wrote: > > Filed as

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

Filed as https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/3397 @Jonathan, I would have requested your review there too, but didn't have your GitHub handle. thanks 2018-04-17 10:57 GMT+02:00 Baptiste Mathus : > Fine by me. > > But then my only question left is: should we request INFRA

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

Fine by me. But then my only question left is: should we request INFRA to change our Windows agents on ci.jenkins.io so that they are configured differently/more like a target environment and less like a dev machine? Since, again, those tests did run correctly there and I guess we would like them

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Devin Nusbaum wrote: > I would just > ignore it on Windows unconditionally. Yes, especially given JENKINS-37862. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

AIUI creating symlinks in Windows 10+ requires running as administrator unless developer mode is enabled. Blog post from Microsoft on the changes: https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/12/02/symlinks-windows-10/ . I’m

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

Yeah, introduced in https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/4f2e2615055 / https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/2548 Just checked, and though the PR history is now deleted, I'm pretty sure the CI did run on Windows for this too. So there must be a reason why this works or not under some

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Jonathan Bergh wrote: > This helper function in the test led me to > believe this test should not be running on the Windows platform The `checkPermissionsRespectUmask` test is skipped on Windows. (Well, at least potentially—not sure

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

hi Mark, Thanks for coming back to me. This helper function in the test led me to believe this test should not be running on the Windows platform ( *private static boolean isPosixSupported(File newFile) throws IOException {// Check Posix calls are supported (to avoid

Re: AtomicFileWriterTest fails

Windows allows symbolic links as an optional behavior that must be enabled with a registry change. Does the test pass if you enable symbolic links in the windows registry? On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 3:36 AM Jonathan Bergh wrote: > hi all, > > i have just cloned and tried to