-
Bug
-
Resolution: Incomplete
-
Major
-
Windows Server 2012 R2
AccuRev 6.2.3
Jenkins 2.32.1
AccuRev Plugin 0.7.6
The "Changes" list on my Jenkins jobs (and corresponding emails) using the AccuRev plugin do not match the change detection of the job's "Filter for Poll SCM". Promotes to only the specified sub-folder defined in "Filter for Poll SCM" are correctly identified and kick-off the job, but the "Changes" list for the job that gets kicked-off are all changes for the entire stream since the job last ran, not just the changes for the sub-folder specified in "Filter for Poll SCM".
My stream contains many sub-folders for each "package", and a Jenkins job exists for each "package" sub-folder. With the current behavior, irrelevant change-sets are being sent in job notification emails and developers not involved with the changes of a specific "package" job are being notified about success and failures even though they didn't promote changes to said "package". Is there anyway to make the job "Changes" list match on the changes based on "Filter for Poll SCM"? Thanks!
- relates to
-
JENKINS-41526 "Filter for Poll SCM" detects changes on similarly named folders
-
- Closed
-
-
JENKINS-42939 AccuRev plugin does not start job on detected changes
-
- Closed
-
casz Hi. I'm not sure I fully understand your question. I do want to notify everyone that promoted a change to the package (Package A) of a failed build, but I don't want to notify those who promoted a change to another package (Package B) of a "Package A" failed build - they should only be notified of a "Package B" failed build.
We currently notify a distribution list, with a handful of developers on it, of all build success/failures for all package jobs (using the Jenkins email-ext plugin). What I would like to do is have the changes for a job match the change detection. Currently the changes for a job are all the changes for the stream since the job last ran, not just the changes for the sub-folder since the job last ran. I know not everyone may want this behavior, so to optionally be able to enable this would be fine by me. Does this make sense? I can add a scenario example if that would help.