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

[JENKINS-34923] #2395

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 9, 2016
Merged

[JENKINS-34923] #2395

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 9, 2016

Conversation

ndeloof
Copy link
Contributor

@ndeloof ndeloof commented Jun 7, 2016

read https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-34923 for justification
proposed change has minimal impact on core and delegates log encoding consistency to plugin relying on new Run event to do some pre-computation.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas De Loof [email protected]

Signed-off-by: Nicolas De Loof <[email protected]>
@oleg-nenashev oleg-nenashev added the needs-more-reviews Complex change, which would benefit from more eyes label Jun 7, 2016
@oleg-nenashev
Copy link
Member

It would be useful if the PR includes a summary of the change and justification. Or at least a link to JIRA. Otherwise reviewers have to rad the full conversation log

@ndeloof
Copy link
Contributor Author

ndeloof commented Jun 7, 2016

@oleg-nenashev the Jira issue is in the PR title

@ndeloof
Copy link
Contributor Author

ndeloof commented Jun 7, 2016

@oleg-nenashev
Copy link
Member

@ndeloof thanks!

@ndeloof
Copy link
Contributor Author

ndeloof commented Jun 8, 2016

any feedback on this ? Would like to get this merged for 2.9

@slide
Copy link
Member

slide commented Jun 8, 2016

👍

@@ -204,6 +204,10 @@ public Slave getNode() {
}
}

public TaskListener getListener() {
Copy link
Member

@jtnord jtnord Jun 9, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should really have a mininimal bit of Javadoc as it is a new public method in core.
it requires at least a @since TODO fix when merging

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/**
 * accessor method for SlaveComputer's {@link TaskListener}
* @return the SlaveComputer's {@link TaskListener}
 */

Would this really be useful ?

Copy link
Member

@jtnord jtnord Jun 9, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it is a start. will it always return a valid object - can it return null - when was the method introduced?

Copy link
Member

@jtnord jtnord Jun 9, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/**

  • Return the {@code TaskListener} for this SlaveComputer. This is generally a {@link StreamTaskListener} that wraps {@link super#getLog()}
  • @return the {@code TaskListener} object, never null.
  • @SInCE // TODO populate when merging (or 2.8 if you feel lucky)
    */
    public....

@jtnord
Copy link
Member

jtnord commented Jun 9, 2016

code looks fine to me, but the javadoc needs work.

@@ -207,6 +216,21 @@ public static void fireCompleted(Run r, @Nonnull TaskListener listener) {
}

/**
* Fires the {@link #onInitialize(Run)} event.
*/
public static void fireInitialize(Run r) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

shouldn't something be calling this? (links to my prior question - what does it mean for a Run to be initialized - when does this happen) - are you expecting all slave types to have to fire this?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh I see it...

@jtnord
Copy link
Member

jtnord commented Jun 9, 2016

🐝

@ndeloof ndeloof merged commit ceb36b5 into jenkinsci:master Jun 9, 2016
@oleg-nenashev oleg-nenashev removed the needs-more-reviews Complex change, which would benefit from more eyes label Jun 9, 2016
oleg-nenashev added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 12, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants