Fleshing out backwards compatibility section of JEP-202 #98
Conversation
oleg-nenashev
left a comment
oleg-nenashev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for doing that! Looks good. For obsolete API usages it may make sense to create a follow-up ticket to the core
|
|
||
| === Master-based file streaming | ||
|
|
||
| Some plugins using ``VirtualFile``s corresponding to build artifacts are still calling `open` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wow, didn't know about this syntax (double-single-quote)
| As seen in | ||
| link:https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Infra/job/deprecated-usage-in-plugins/job/master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/output/usage-by-api.html#hudson_model_Run_getArtifactsDir__Ljava_io_File_[this report], | ||
| there are a number of plugins on the usual update center still calling `Run.getArtifactsDir()` and/or `Run.Artifact.getFile()`, | ||
| despite the fact that these methods were deprecated in Jenkins 1.531 in 2013 as part of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it makes sense to modify the API methods and to print WARNINGs if these APIs are used with custom ArtifactManager configurations. Then it can be somehow routed to telemetry in JEP-304
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, was already suggested in this JEP, but does not do much good until JEP-304 is live I suppose.
| [cols="5,>",options="header",width="50%"] | ||
| |============================ | ||
| |Plugin|Installations | ||
| |link:https://plugins.jenkins.io/maven-plugin[Maven Integration]|124783 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, should we rename it to die-hard-plugin? :D
| These include: | ||
|
|
||
| [cols="5,>",options="header",width="50%"] | ||
| |============================ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to create RFE tickets and reference them from JEP? maybe it's rather preferable to it in a Wiki page so that we could do it dynamically (like https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Plugins+affected+by+fix+for+JEP-200 or https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Plugins+affected+by+fix+for+SECURITY-170)
Then the warning message for old API could redirect people to that page
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did not consider it worth bothering given the limited impact and the low installation counts. Would be possible if adding core logging, of course.
At any rate, that does not seem to have much bearing on the text of the JEP.
|
@oleg-nenashev You approved but then didn't merge. Should this be merged on not? |
|
I didn't merge it because there was no JEP Sponsor's approval at that point. |
4 participants
As suggested by @oleg-nenashev in #96, enumerating plugins known to be using APIs which would clash with remote artifact storage. CC @carlossg