Skip to content

Fix unit tests that fail due to jenkins CSS changes #184

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
jmMeessen merged 2 commits into from
May 2, 2022
Merged

Fix unit tests that fail due to jenkins CSS changes #184

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8a4763f
Fix unit tests that fail due to jenkins CSS changes
mikecirioli Feb 22, 2022
a3fd790
update missing property
mikecirioli Feb 22, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 8 additions & 3 deletions pom.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
<parent>
<groupId>org.jenkins-ci.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>plugin</artifactId>
<version>4.33</version>
<version>4.36</version>
<relativePath />
</parent>

Expand All @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
<changelist>-SNAPSHOT</changelist>
<gitHubRepo>jenkinsci/config-file-provider-plugin</gitHubRepo>
<maven.javadoc.skip>true</maven.javadoc.skip>
<jenkins.version>2.303.3</jenkins.version>
<jenkins.version>2.324</jenkins.version>
<java.level>8</java.level>
<hpi.compatibleSinceVersion>2.15</hpi.compatibleSinceVersion>
</properties>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -67,7 +67,12 @@
<groupId>org.jenkins-ci</groupId>
<artifactId>symbol-annotation</artifactId>
<version>1.23</version>
</dependency>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.errorprone</groupId>
<artifactId>error_prone_annotations</artifactId>
<version>2.10.0</version>
</dependency>
Comment on lines +71 to +75
Copy link
Member

@jtnord jtnord Feb 23, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

was excluded for script-security do we need to version manage this or should it be excluded if coming from core via guava?

</dependencies>
</dependencyManagement>

Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions src/test/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/configfiles/ConfigFilesSEC1253Test.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ public void regularCaseStillWorking() throws Exception {
assertThat(store.getConfigs(), hasSize(1));

HtmlPage configFiles = wc.goTo("configfiles");
HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@onclick, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");
HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@data-url, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");
Copy link
Member

@jtnord jtnord Feb 23, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 

HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@data-url, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')|contains(@onclick, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");

should (if I got my XPath correct) have allowed to fix a PCT issue without bumping the core to a non LTS making upgrades for LTS users harder.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mikecirioli mikecirioli Feb 23, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

basically, your saying to make this test backwards compatible with older jenkins?

Copy link
Member

@jtnord jtnord Feb 23, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am saying you could have done that to make it backwards compatible with older Jenkins versions. As it is a test only issue and the plugin will work after an upgrade of Jenkins, the current way is not making it any harder for users (there would be no broken plugins post upgrade) so it is fine as is. (hence my approval)


AtomicReference<Boolean> confirmCalled = new AtomicReference<>(false);
wc.setConfirmHandler((page, s) -> {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ public void xssPrevention() throws Exception {
JenkinsRule.WebClient wc = j.createWebClient();

HtmlPage configFiles = wc.goTo("configfiles");
HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@onclick, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");
HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@data-url, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");

AtomicReference<Boolean> confirmCalled = new AtomicReference<>(false);
AtomicReference<Boolean> alertCalled = new AtomicReference<>(false);
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/test/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/configfiles/folder/FolderConfigFileActionTest.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ public void xssPreventionInFolder() throws Exception {
// Clicking the button works
// If we click on the link, it goes via POST, therefore it removes it successfully
HtmlPage configFiles = wc.goTo(f1.getUrl() + "configfiles");
HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@onclick, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");
HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@data-url, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");

AtomicReference<Boolean> confirmCalled = new AtomicReference<>(false);
wc.setConfirmHandler((page, s) -> {
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/test/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/configfiles/sec/Security2002Test.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ public void xssPrevention() throws Exception {
// Clicking the button works
// If we click on the link, it goes via POST, therefore it removes it successfully
HtmlPage configFiles = wc.goTo("configfiles");
HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@onclick, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");
HtmlAnchor removeAnchor = configFiles.getDocumentElement().getFirstByXPath("//a[contains(@data-url, 'removeConfig?id=" + CONFIG_ID + "')]");

AtomicReference<Boolean> confirmCalled = new AtomicReference<>(false);
wc.setConfirmHandler((page, s) -> {
Expand Down