-
Improvement
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Major
-
None
Discussion
We need to ensure that issues like JENKINS-48571 are more easily self-diagnosable by users.
At first glance there are two ways this could be solved:
- We could enforce the id assignment by throwing an IllegalStateException or similar if the id is null at the time of setOwner(non-null)
- We could ensure an id assignment by assigning one if the id is null at the time of setOwner(non-null)
There may also be other potential solutions.
Acceptance Criteria
- Assessment criteria for selection of a proposed solution have been defined and reviewed by stephenconnolly and michaelneale
- The list candidate solutions to be assessed has been defined
- The results of the assessment process have been reviewed with stephenconnolly and michaelneale and the winner agreed.
- The winning solution has been implemented.
- The documentation has been updated to include the impact.
- Minimization of the risk of "Build storms" has been included in the assessment criteria
Critical assumpitions
(if any of these prove to be broken in the process of resolving this ticket then a replan is required)
- There is no good reason to call setId after the owner has been assigned.
- is related to
-
JENKINS-48571 checkout scm fails silently after "Could not determine exact tip revision of <branch>" in logs
- Closed
-
JENKINS-61469 Checkout fails with ERROR: Could not determine exact tip revision of <branch>
- Closed