Skip to content
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.

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

Fix Jenkins#updateNode to call NodeListener#onUpdated #10397

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Vlatombe
Copy link
Member

The existing Jenkins#updateNode does call Nodes#updateNode then Node#save, but unlike Nodes#replaceNode, it doesn't call the corresponding NodeListener#onUpdated. In some cases this can cause inconsistencies.

See JENKINS-XXXXX.

Testing done

Proposed changelog entries

  • developer: NodeListener#onUpdated now gets called when Jenkins#updateNode is called

Proposed changelog category

/label

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

  • The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
  • The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
  • There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
  • New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
  • New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
  • New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
  • For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
  • For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

  • There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
  • Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
  • Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
  • Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
  • If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
  • If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

@Vlatombe Vlatombe added the developer Changes which impact plugin developers label Mar 13, 2025
}
return false;
exists = Queue.withLock(() -> {
if (node == nodes.get(node.getNodeName())) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(ignore WS)

@@ -252,7 +254,7 @@ public void run() {
newOne.onLoad(Nodes.this, newOne.getNodeName());
}
});
updateNode(newOne);
updateNode(newOne, false);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

because

NodeListener.fireOnUpdated(oldOne, newOne);
FTR

@@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ public boolean isHoldOffLaunchUntilSave() {
}

/**
* In most cases, you should not call this method directly, but {@link Jenkins#updateNode(Node)} instead.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps this should be overridden in Slave and that overload @Deprecated as a reminder? In fact

void setTemporaryOfflineCause(OfflineCause cause) {
try {
if (temporaryOfflineCause != cause) {
temporaryOfflineCause = cause;
save();
looks suspicious.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
developer Changes which impact plugin developers
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants