[JENKINS-36283] custom pr behavior by pascallap · Pull Request #25 · jenkinsci/bitbucket-branch-source-plugin

pascallap · 2016-11-11T14:30:25Z

Put in place the bases to solve: Jenkins-36283
Option to choose:

Build origin branches (HEAD)
Build origin branches also filed as PRs (HEAD)
Build origin/fork PRs (unmerged head) (HEAD)
Build fork PRs (unmerged head)
Build origin PRs (merged with base branch)
Build fork PRs (merged with base branch)

villelahdenvuo · 2016-11-17T14:08:50Z

This is great, we're currently building all commits twice because all our prs come from local branches.

tknerr · 2016-11-22T11:54:51Z

+1 for this. I guess this is meant to supersede #9 then @amuniz ?

Eernie · 2016-11-22T12:11:00Z

Yes I'd rather see this merged then #9 or #25 imho. Just because it has multiple options and is more like Github-source-plugin-#60.

amuniz · 2016-11-23T19:34:38Z

Thanks for the PR, let's wait until #23 is merged to start reviewing this, as it is changing the SCMHead representations and will have impact in your implementation.

I'll probably ping you for minor fixes. If some hard conflict happens after #23 I can take care of it.

pascallap · 2016-12-22T22:33:01Z

Pull Request is know rebase from #23. So conflict should be already resolved.

tknerr · 2017-01-10T13:02:23Z

@amuniz any progress on this pull request?

looks like this would be the one that solves a lot of issues (like #26 and #9)

abubeck · 2017-01-11T16:22:46Z

@amuniz: A merge of this PR would also be very important for us. Let us know if we can contribute for getting this merged.

jpigree · 2017-01-12T10:44:50Z

@amuniz. Same here. This feature will be awesome for us.

Feel free to ask us for help aswell.

amuniz · 2017-01-23T09:12:02Z

I'll try to review this as soon as possible, it is next in my queue.

estyrke · 2017-01-24T09:08:38Z

src/main/java/com/cloudbees/jenkins/plugins/bitbucket/BitbucketSCMSource.java

+                    revision = getRevision(head, hash, pr);
+                    observer.observe(head, revision);
+                }
+            }


Suggestion if you'd like to reduce the amount of duplication here:

bool buildPRMerge = fork ? buildForkPRMerge : buildOriginPRMerge; bool buildPRHead = fork ? buildForkPRHead : buildOriginPRHead; bool addHeadSuffix = buildPRMerge && buildPRHead; if (buildPRMerge) { head = new PullRequestSCMHead(owner, repositoryName, branchName, pr, true); revision = getRevision(head, hash, pr); observer.observe(head, revision); } if (buildPRHead) { head = new PullRequestSCMHead(owner, repositoryName, branchName, pr, false, addHeadSuffix); revision = getRevision(head, hash, pr); observer.observe(head, revision); }

Thanks, I knew that there was a better way to handle this.

jeffweiss · 2017-01-27T20:04:29Z

Review ping. This will be a non-trivial improvement in my life. Would love to see it released.

raulgd · 2017-01-28T23:17:34Z

Being able to only build PRs and not branches and PRs at the same time is a big must for us as well, I'd love to get this installed on our Jenkins as soon as possible :)

tknerr · 2017-02-01T08:25:46Z

If there's anything we can help in testing, please let us know.

I was about to build this PR but then noticed that some other SCM related plugins are missing / not published yet in the 2.x release line (see blog post here)

Does it make sense to take this for a spin now, or better wait for a re-release of the 2.x release line of the SCM plugins?

pascallap · 2017-02-01T16:33:23Z

This Pull Request is using the added objects from 2.x scm api.

If you want to test/evaluate functionality, you will have to use the experimental plugins repository. So you will get access to the 2.x plugin, until they are back in the stable plugin repository. (Don't do it on production system)

For the re-release of the 2.x plugins and the value to review this at the moment, @amuniz and @stephenc are probably the best persons able to answer those questions.

luispabon · 2017-02-06T14:00:34Z

It would be great to allow "only PRs" as well as add specific branches. This would allow us to only build PRs as well as the master branch when things are merged into it.

abishek3876 · 2017-02-08T03:49:15Z

@amuniz , any ETA possible for this? Looks like this is a must have for many (including me).

stephenc · 2017-02-08T23:58:11Z

Personally I was to fix the "delete everything if there is an api error" bug first and get that released before considering and additional changes

stephenc · 2017-02-21T16:09:10Z

This really feels like replication of the death by 1000 check-boxes anti-pattern in the GitHub Branch Source. There will likely be other tweaks that will be needed on the PR building behaviour, so I would rather get the behaviour plugable and fix both plugins UI at the same time

estyrke · 2017-02-21T16:18:15Z

@stephenc That would be awesome, but what time frame are we talking then? Me and others have been longing for this functionality for half a year now, and at least for my own part I'd love to have death by checkboxes instead of nothing at all while we wait for a superior alternative.

jeffweiss · 2017-02-21T16:24:56Z

@stephenc this implementation might be death by a 1000 cuts for the handful of plugin developers working in both GU and BB, but the larger number of users of this plugin are already suffering from death by 1000 cuts of duplicate builds for origin PRs.

tknerr · 2017-03-15T17:55:26Z

+1 been quiet for a while but still eagerly waiting for that! 👍

stephenc · 2017-03-15T18:39:21Z

I am against complicating the code further until I tidy up the configuration options.

jeffweiss · 2017-03-15T18:42:56Z

@stephenc that's incongruent with the priorities you indicated 3 weeks ago.

kevcodez · 2017-03-22T19:33:16Z

Any ETA for merge @stephenc ?

fonsecas72 · 2017-03-24T18:37:12Z

Awesome job guys!
I've solved the conflicts here https://github.com/fonsecas72/bitbucket-branch-source-plugin/tree/pullrequest_with_shits as a workaround and everything seems fine (some config labels are not working but it should be some mistake I made).
I hope that you can merge this soon.

kevcodez · 2017-03-29T10:27:35Z

@fonsecas72 Is there a workaround to skip building PRs for now?

This pull request is about 5 months old and still not merged unfortunately.

luispabon · 2017-03-29T10:34:46Z

@kevcodez we have some Jenkinsfile trickery to build either master or PR branches only:

def isPr = {
    String branch = env.BRANCH_NAME;
    return branch.startsWith('PR-')
}

Then simply

node {
    if (env.BRANCH_NAME == 'master' || isPr() == true) {
        // your stuff
    }

estyrke · 2017-03-29T12:43:34Z

@kevcodez @luispabon We have the following in "Branch names to build automatically" in the organization folder configuration, which accomplishes the same thing: (master)|(PR-\d+). It should be possible to construct a regex that will select everything except PRs as well (maybe ^(?!PR-\d+$)?)

kevcodez · 2017-03-29T12:49:48Z

@estyrke I've tried ^(?!PR-\d+$) and ^(?!PR.+)

Looking up TSU/eos-ts-core for branches
Checking branch feature/TZ-1262 from TSU/eos-ts-core
‘Jenkinsfile’ found
Met criteria
Looking up TSU/eos-ts-core for pull requests
Checking PR from TSU/eos-ts-core and branch bugfix/TZ-1193
‘Jenkinsfile’ found
Met criteria

It does not exclude PRs :(.

fonsecas72 · 2017-03-29T14:44:20Z

@kevcodez It should work. Go and try the branch I've mentioned. You should then have checkboxes (similar to github) which should allow you to build whatever you want.

(ignore the label issues)

tknerr · 2017-04-05T14:26:15Z

@stephenc any update / approximate ETA on your earlier comment regarding the cleanup?

nickbroon · 2017-04-05T18:29:39Z

👍

sasah · 2017-04-17T10:44:34Z

+1!!!

jetersen · 2017-04-17T12:19:55Z

It is being worked on through this EPIC: https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-43426

stephenc · 2017-04-21T14:16:30Z

Here is a preview of the cleanup in the GitHub Branch Source. I am currently finalizing that clean-up and then I will be refactoring to make this easy to share commonality between the two plugins:

There is progress and hopefully this will explain why I have been pushing back on the checkboxes

ghost · 2017-05-03T08:42:46Z

Nice preview, the option "Only branches that are not also filed as PRs" would work excellent for our use case! We are standing by to upgrade asap :)

szhem · 2017-05-11T12:38:08Z

Looking forward for merge for about a year :)

tknerr · 2017-05-24T23:40:43Z

@stephenc status ping, anything ready enough we could take for a test ride?

stephenc · 2017-05-25T03:14:53Z

@tknerr getting close... sometime next week I hope

tknerr · 2017-05-25T14:06:00Z

Awesome, thanks @stephenc! Looking forward to give it a spin. Am 25.05.2017 05:15 schrieb "Stephen Connolly" <notifications@github.com>:

…

@tknerr <https://github.com/tknerr> getting close... sometime next week I hope — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#25 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAWUsB20HNOq2v9s0LQ4nzi9d861OXxNks5r9PIugaJpZM4KvzEo> .

palfrey · 2017-06-02T10:43:16Z

I'm trying to use @fonsecas72's version of this (as commented further up) and I'm hitting some problems:

ERROR: [Fri Jun 02 11:39:45 BST 2017] Could not fetch branches from source 28422453-5718-445e-8fe2-2b89e20326b2
java.lang.NullPointerException
	at com.cloudbees.jenkins.plugins.bitbucket.PullRequestSCMRevision.equals(PullRequestSCMRevision.java:44)
	at jenkins.branch.MultiBranchProject$SCMHeadObserverImpl.observe(MultiBranchProject.java:1918)
	at com.cloudbees.jenkins.plugins.bitbucket.BitbucketSCMSource.observeFactory(BitbucketSCMSource.java:531)
	at com.cloudbees.jenkins.plugins.bitbucket.BitbucketSCMSource.observe(BitbucketSCMSource.java:511)
	at com.cloudbees.jenkins.plugins.bitbucket.BitbucketSCMSource.retrievePullRequests(BitbucketSCMSource.java:452)
	at com.cloudbees.jenkins.plugins.bitbucket.BitbucketSCMSource.retrieve(BitbucketSCMSource.java:396)
	at jenkins.scm.api.SCMSource._retrieve(SCMSource.java:300)
	at jenkins.scm.api.SCMSource.fetch(SCMSource.java:210)
	at jenkins.branch.MultiBranchProject.computeChildren(MultiBranchProject.java:634)
	at com.cloudbees.hudson.plugins.folder.computed.ComputedFolder.updateChildren(ComputedFolder.java:219)
	at com.cloudbees.hudson.plugins.folder.computed.FolderComputation.run(FolderComputation.java:141)
	at jenkins.branch.MultiBranchProject$BranchIndexing.run(MultiBranchProject.java:973)
	at hudson.model.ResourceController.execute(ResourceController.java:98)
	at hudson.model.Executor.run(Executor.java:410)

Also, we'd like to build only PRs and the master branch. Is there any way to do this? So far, I can manage to get it to build PRs or build master, but no option for "only PRs plus regex-matched branches"

DoDoENT · 2017-06-02T12:04:53Z

I have the same use-case as @palfrey. Currently I have that implemented as custom groovy script which simply does not run the build actions if not on master branch or on PR.

batesyuk · 2017-06-03T14:01:46Z

Same for me; master and beta should build and deploy on every change, other than that it should ignore all other branches and unit test PRs

stephenc · 2017-06-03T15:14:51Z

FYI my refactoring is nearly ready. Will add merge commit builds for PRs, ability to not build origin branches that are files as a PR, lots of control over git extensions, etc... may even change the baby's nappy.

I will be looking for beta testers next week some time

palfrey · 2017-06-06T15:46:29Z

I started doing some work on this and if this is of any use, https://github.com/lshift/bitbucket-branch-source-plugin/tree/jenkins-36283 has

Fixes to the exception I saw earlier
Support for PRs + regex-matched branch builds
Sets a dummy username/email for Jenkins in Git before trying to locally merge branches so that type of build works again
Master merged in

stephenc · 2017-06-06T17:08:22Z

Traits makes most of that irrelevant. The git behaviours can be attached directly. More advanced "custom" behaviours can be encapsulated in their own plugins so that only those that need the functionality clutter their UI... and only when using it

stephenc · 2017-06-12T16:17:08Z

superseded by #53

tknerr mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2016

Option to skip pull requests during branch & pullrequests discovery #9

Closed

amuniz changed the title ~~[Jenkins 36283] custom pr behavior~~ [JENKINS-36283] custom pr behavior Nov 23, 2016

amuniz mentioned this pull request Nov 23, 2016

[JENKINS-39355 Follow-up] Unpicking some of the replicated hacks from… #23

Merged

amuniz mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2017

Add options for scanning branches/PRs #32

Closed

estyrke reviewed Jan 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

jeffweiss mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2017

Optional pullrequests - extended for Multibranch and team project #27

Closed

pascallap added 5 commits February 21, 2017 07:43

[JENKINS-36283] custom pr behavior

b089900

Fix tracking problem with PullRequest Job

9bb3652

Avoid code duplication in observefactory

3af5f8e

Fix conflict du to rebase from master

b8af3d9

Remove redundant nullcheck of hash

78bedf4

tknerr mentioned this pull request Apr 6, 2017

Allow to specify git branch instead of pull request id, Allow to break the build AmadeusITGroup/sonar-stash#93

Closed

stephenc closed this Jun 12, 2017

pascallap mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2017

[JENKINS-43507] Migrate Bitbucket Plugin to Traits #53

Merged

Conversation

pascallap commented Nov 11, 2016 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

villelahdenvuo commented Nov 17, 2016

Uh oh!

tknerr commented Nov 22, 2016

Uh oh!

Eernie commented Nov 22, 2016

Uh oh!

amuniz commented Nov 23, 2016

Uh oh!

pascallap commented Dec 22, 2016

Uh oh!

tknerr commented Jan 10, 2017

Uh oh!

abubeck commented Jan 11, 2017

Uh oh!

jpigree commented Jan 12, 2017

Uh oh!

amuniz commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

estyrke Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pascallap Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jeffweiss commented Jan 27, 2017

Uh oh!

raulgd commented Jan 28, 2017

Uh oh!

tknerr commented Feb 1, 2017

Uh oh!

pascallap commented Feb 1, 2017

Uh oh!

luispabon commented Feb 6, 2017

Uh oh!

abishek3876 commented Feb 8, 2017

Uh oh!

stephenc commented Feb 8, 2017

Uh oh!

stephenc commented Feb 21, 2017

Uh oh!

estyrke commented Feb 21, 2017

Uh oh!

jeffweiss commented Feb 21, 2017

Uh oh!

tknerr commented Mar 15, 2017

Uh oh!

stephenc commented Mar 15, 2017

Uh oh!

jeffweiss commented Mar 15, 2017

Uh oh!

kevcodez commented Mar 22, 2017

Uh oh!

fonsecas72 commented Mar 24, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kevcodez commented Mar 29, 2017

Uh oh!

luispabon commented Mar 29, 2017

Uh oh!

estyrke commented Mar 29, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kevcodez commented Mar 29, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fonsecas72 commented Mar 29, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tknerr commented Apr 5, 2017

Uh oh!

nickbroon commented Apr 5, 2017

Uh oh!

sasah commented Apr 17, 2017

Uh oh!

jetersen commented Apr 17, 2017

Uh oh!

pascallap commented Nov 11, 2016 •

edited

Loading

fonsecas72 commented Mar 24, 2017 •

edited

Loading

estyrke commented Mar 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

kevcodez commented Mar 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

fonsecas72 commented Mar 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading