-
Bug
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Major
-
docker jenkins:latest (image id 8d383af9763f)
blue ocean 1.0.0-rc1
-
-
Blue Ocean - 1.1-beta-1, Blue Ocean - 1.1-beta2
Notes
We don't want to be showing the commits from a shared library in this case. We need to do some testing here and find out why shared library changes are coming through and not the application code. We suspect that we pick the first grouping of change sets and this happens to be the changeset of the shared library in this scenario.
Expected behavior:
Show only the latest commit from the repository that the pipeline originates from (ie where the Jenkinsfile is changed) that was triggering the pipeline.
Any other commits are to be ignored as part of this. They will show up in the design shown in: https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-39860
Original request
Heyo!
I'm using pipelines for a while now and have most of the steps used abstracted away into a pipeline library in a git repository. I now installed blue ocean today and was scrolling through my builds which had all suprisingly the same commit shown:
Turns out this is actually the latest commit of the pipeline library I'm using as seen in the console log:
Obtained Jenkinsfile from ccf54369437ff7dcd66b888fde50b19bad7ecf23
Loading library mylib@master
> git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree # timeout=10
Setting origin to /mnt/devops
> git config remote.origin.url /mnt/devops # timeout=10
Fetching origin...
Fetching upstream changes from origin
> git --version # timeout=10
> git fetch --tags --progress origin +refs/heads/:refs/remotes/origin/
> git rev-parse master^{commit} # timeout=10
> git rev-parse origin/master^{commit} # timeout=10
> git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree # timeout=10
Fetching changes from the remote Git repository
> git config remote.origin.url /mnt/devops # timeout=10
Fetching upstream changes from /mnt/devops
> git --version # timeout=10 > git fetch --tags --progress /mnt/devops +refs/heads/:refs/remotes/origin/
Checking out Revision 76cca6a9021830b3850eab338050c1d839d7b318 (master) > git config core.sparsecheckout # timeout=10
> git checkout -f 76cca6a9021830b3850eab338050c1d839d7b318
> git rev-list 76cca6a9021830b3850eab338050c1d839d7b318 # timeout=10
[Pipeline] node Running on master in /var/jenkins_home/workspace/PR-63-WGSBDQPE6N2TEWS2C25CRCFXVLMNQURTXNY3KELAD4YZHGLFQIPA
[Pipeline] {
[Pipeline] checkout
> git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree # timeout=10
Fetching changes from 2 remote Git repositories
> git config remote.origin.url https://github.com/sneils/some-repo.git # timeout=10
Fetching upstream changes from https://github.com/sneils/some-repo.git
> git --version # timeout=10 using GIT_ASKPASS to set credentials checkout
> git fetch --tags --progress https://github.com/sneils/some-repo.git +refs/heads/:refs/remotes/origin/
> git config remote.origin1.url https://github.com/sneils/some-repo.git # timeout=10
Fetching upstream changes from https://github.com/sneils/some-repo.git using GIT_ASKPASS to set credentials checkout
> git fetch --tags --progress https://github.com/sneils/some-repo.git +refs/pull//head:refs/remotes/origin/pr/
Checking out Revision ccf54369437ff7dcd66b888fde50b19bad7ecf23 (PR-63)
> git config core.sparsecheckout # timeout=10
> git checkout -f ccf54369437ff7dcd66b888fde50b19bad7ecf23
...
I would expect this to be the commit of the actually checked out repository.
- is duplicated by
-
-
- Closed
-
- relates to
-
JENKINS-41497 Poll SCM and Timer triggers include "Changes" for a Pipeline for any/all Shared Libraries
-
- Reopened
-
[JENKINS-42809] Activity/Branch dashboard show pipeline library commit instead of actual built commit
michaelneale - perfect is the enemy of the good
Simplistic system that will cover 90% of the cases
I think we can "definitively" say that if there are multiple changesets, then a change in the pipeline library is not what we are primarily interested in. Even in the case where I manually trigger a build based on changing my library - I generally wouldn't really care if BO displayed the code as "not changing".
- Use any changeset that isn't a library changeset
Overly complex system
If you were going to go for something a bit more generally applicable, then each changeset would be ranked.
(Imagine I don't care about implementation details - because for the most part I don't)
- does this change-set have changes - "+3"
- is this changeset for the MBP Jenkinsfile - "+2"
- is this changeset for an SCM repo referenced in the Pipeline - "+1"
- is this changeset for a library - "+0"
Sort descending, display the first
This then introduces issues where the referenced commit for display may change repos for each build - which may be more confusing than going with the simplistic approach.
bwalding well the problem is there isn't space to show more than one.
I think yeah, people rarely care about library version - I was talking about additional SCM checkouts coming in the pipeline at different points (something I have done a fair bit of - although not without regret)
michaelneale bwalding the work around for multiple commits is JENKINS-39860
In blueocean we were computing commit id of current scm checkout by using BuildData action. BuildData action always points to shared library commit id. For this reason all commit ids always pointed to shared library. Hard to tell if thats right behavior reading it's Javadoc.
However using SCMRevisionAction, we get checked out repo's commit id correctly. I tested it with multiple branches and it seems to behave well.
I have PR opened with this change, https://github.com/jenkinsci/blueocean-plugin/pull/1010. jglick jamesdumay PTAL.
Laurent Almeras
added a comment - Hi,
Sorry to comment again on a closed issue, but I am fighting with a similar issue with other plugins, and I am a bit lost on how to fix it.
I encounter this issue (SHA retrieved from pipeline's lib instead of project) on github-plugin and gitlab-plugin (last version for each one). I open the following issues :
- gitlab : https://github.com/jenkinsci/gitlab-plugin/issues/553
- github : https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-40150
For each plugin, revision information lookup is done with BuildData, and is buggy ; using SCMRevisionAction fixes the bug for github-plugin, but :
- gitlab-plugin also uses BuildData to lookup remote url, this information is not accessible in SCMRevisionAction;
- it seems to me that « BuildData containing pipeline's lib information » 's behavior is a regression, as it used to work;
- I also think, but I'm not familiar with Jenkins API, that it is not a good choice to push pipeline's library information into BuildData.
Maybe previous BuildData's behavior may be restored (and custom actions should be used to store pipeline's library information). If this is not the case, is there anyone willing to point out to Jenkins API allowing to mimic old behaviors ?
Thanks.
Laurent Almeras
added a comment - Hi,
Sorry to comment again on a closed issue, but I am fighting with a similar issue with other plugins, and I am a bit lost on how to fix it.
I encounter this issue (SHA retrieved from pipeline's lib instead of project) on github-plugin and gitlab-plugin (last version for each one). I open the following issues :
gitlab : https://github.com/jenkinsci/gitlab-plugin/issues/553
github : https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-40150
For each plugin, revision information lookup is done with BuildData, and is buggy ; using SCMRevisionAction fixes the bug for github-plugin, but :
gitlab-plugin also uses BuildData to lookup remote url, this information is not accessible in SCMRevisionAction;
it seems to me that « BuildData containing pipeline's lib information » 's behavior is a regression, as it used to work;
I also think, but I'm not familiar with Jenkins API, that it is not a good choice to push pipeline's library information into BuildData.
Maybe previous BuildData's behavior may be restored (and custom actions should be used to store pipeline's library information). If this is not the case, is there anyone willing to point out to Jenkins API allowing to mimic old behaviors ?
Thanks. 
I am a little conflicted by this one. Simplistically speaking, we can be opinionated and say that the commit should be from the repo which the MBP was originally created from, but I know from experience that isn't always the one that I care about (in some CD scenarios) - or I might want to show all of them (but I am not sure the design with the table can cope with showing more than one)