Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-26300

CPS interpreter fails on calls to find(), findAll() default methods

    • Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Duplicate
    • Icon: Major Major
    • pipeline
    • None

      The CPS interpreter does not translate calls to .find() , .findAll() default methods correctly.

      The following test case fails:

      assert evalCPS("[1,2,3].find { it > 1 }") == 2
      

      I see that groovy-cps has an CpsDefaultGroovyMethods class that provides an alternate implementation of each(). Does this mean that all methods that accept a closure as an argument will also fail?

          [JENKINS-26300] CPS interpreter fails on calls to find(), findAll() default methods

          Baptiste Mathus added a comment - - edited

          I can confirm simple functional-style programming does not seem to work (collect neither). Wondering if I should file another issue, just let me know.

          Btw, groovy-cps each() test method indeed fails for me on the github current master (60d8d9c6aa5299baee679e14069e36347973e45f). Wondering if it's platform specific or why Jesse managed to cut the 1.2 two days ago.

          Update: the test above fails on Windows, but not on Linux. Didn't investigate as to why.

          Baptiste Mathus added a comment - - edited I can confirm simple functional-style programming does not seem to work (collect neither). Wondering if I should file another issue, just let me know. Btw, groovy-cps each() test method indeed fails for me on the github current master (60d8d9c6aa5299baee679e14069e36347973e45f). Wondering if it's platform specific or why Jesse managed to cut the 1.2 two days ago. Update: the test above fails on Windows, but not on Linux. Didn't investigate as to why.

          It seems that this case was closed by mistake.  It was closed as a dup of 26307 but 26307 was closed as a duplicate of this, and I just hit this issue again.  Seems it should be re-opened?

          Kenneth Baltrinic added a comment - It seems that this case was closed by mistake.  It was closed as a dup of 26307 but 26307 was closed as a duplicate of this, and I just hit this issue again.  Seems it should be re-opened?

          Looks the same to me.

          Just encountered this issue.

          Is it possible to fix it?

          Joerg Schwaerzler added a comment - Looks the same to me. Just encountered this issue. Is it possible to fix it?

            kohsuke Kohsuke Kawaguchi
            akbertram Alexander Bertram
            Votes:
            2 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            6 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: