Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-36643

Developer viewing a queued pipeline is given a better indication of the state

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • 1.0-m12, 1.0-pre-beta-1

    Description

      In Scope

      • While the run is queued and there are no steps we should show an empty state in place of the steps
      • Visually as per the mockup
      • When the run moves out of the queued state and into the running state the empty state message should be removed and replaced with the steps
      • Tests please

      Notes

      • Icon is in material icons
      • Might need to provide a new style for this empty state variant?

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            Have to fix a bug first, that I remember mentioned somewhere. Queued job do not have an id.

            To reproduce: Remove all executers from your master jenkins and start a job

            Then try the activity page of the project, refresh the page and you will see

            tscherler Thorsten Scherler added a comment - Have to fix a bug first, that I remember mentioned somewhere. Queued job do not have an id. To reproduce: Remove all executers from your master jenkins and start a job Then try the activity page of the project, refresh the page and you will see
            tfennelly Tom FENNELLY added a comment -

            They don't have a run ID, but they do have a queueId. The queueId will be on the run too once it is created.

            tfennelly Tom FENNELLY added a comment - They don't have a run ID, but they do have a queueId. The queueId will be on the run too once it is created.

            ok I will look into it

            tscherler Thorsten Scherler added a comment - ok I will look into it

            I did a deeper look into this. The problem is the following:

            Currently we only see "queued" jobs through the sse, but we cannot see them in details unless they have received a jobId. That means as well that this jobs are not appearing in the runs array e.g. http://localhost:8080/jenkins/blue/rest/organizations/jenkins/pipelines/bomb/runs/ which explains that you only see them when triggered by sse. They appear in http://localhost:8080/jenkins/blue/rest/organizations/jenkins/pipelines/bomb/queue/

            The question now what is the "right thing" to do. If we want to be able to see queued item, we would need to "merge" the "runs" with the "queue" array in the redux runs and distinct them to fetch in the detail view against the queue storage.

            However classic Jenkins currently does not provide a link for queue item which IMO makes sense, since the item has no information other then the time when it got in the queue

            tscherler Thorsten Scherler added a comment - I did a deeper look into this. The problem is the following: Currently we only see "queued" jobs through the sse, but we cannot see them in details unless they have received a jobId. That means as well that this jobs are not appearing in the runs array e.g. http://localhost:8080/jenkins/blue/rest/organizations/jenkins/pipelines/bomb/runs/ which explains that you only see them when triggered by sse. They appear in http://localhost:8080/jenkins/blue/rest/organizations/jenkins/pipelines/bomb/queue/ The question now what is the "right thing" to do. If we want to be able to see queued item, we would need to "merge" the "runs" with the "queue" array in the redux runs and distinct them to fetch in the detail view against the queue storage. However classic Jenkins currently does not provide a link for queue item which IMO makes sense, since the item has no information other then the time when it got in the queue

            jamesdumay WDYT the quick fix is to disable the link to the detail while queued, or should I go the merge queue/runs route?

            tscherler Thorsten Scherler added a comment - jamesdumay WDYT the quick fix is to disable the link to the detail while queued, or should I go the merge queue/runs route?
            tfennelly Tom FENNELLY added a comment -

            Hey tscherler, see JENKINS-36209. These issue seems very close in nature. See the comments there and the question I asked to vivek.

            tfennelly Tom FENNELLY added a comment - Hey tscherler , see JENKINS-36209 . These issue seems very close in nature. See the comments there and the question I asked to vivek .

            tfennelly Thank you buddy. Until the other is not fixed this.onHold()

            tscherler Thorsten Scherler added a comment - tfennelly Thank you buddy. Until the other is not fixed this.onHold()
            jamesdumay James Dumay added a comment -

            imeredith this kinda looks like the one we spoke about last week?

            jamesdumay James Dumay added a comment - imeredith this kinda looks like the one we spoke about last week?

            People

              imeredith Ivan Meredith
              jamesdumay James Dumay
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              3 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: