Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-67797

Weather status hover text reports wrong result on jobs not yet built

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • 2.336 (Feb 22, 2022), 2.332.2

    Description

      If you have a job that didn't build yet and hover over the weather icon, it reports "100%".

      The job didn't run yet, therefore it can't have a stability rate of 100%

      Attachments

        Activity

          markewaite Mark Waite added a comment - - edited

          Thanks for that report! I've confirmed that Jenkins 2.319.3 does not show the "100%" hover text over the weather icon of an unbuilt job, while Jenkins 2.335 does show the "100%" hover text over the weather icon of an unbuilt job.

          The 2.335 screenshot shows only one of the weather hovertext examples, but all the other rows in the screenshot have the same behavior.

          Jenkins 2.319.3 weather hover text not shown over unbuilt jobs

          Jenkins 2.335 weather hover text shows "100%" over unbuilt jobs

          Jenkins 2.332.1 weather hover text shows "100%" over unbuilt jobs

          markewaite Mark Waite added a comment - - edited Thanks for that report! I've confirmed that Jenkins 2.319.3 does not show the "100%" hover text over the weather icon of an unbuilt job, while Jenkins 2.335 does show the "100%" hover text over the weather icon of an unbuilt job. The 2.335 screenshot shows only one of the weather hovertext examples, but all the other rows in the screenshot have the same behavior. Jenkins 2.319.3 weather hover text not shown over unbuilt jobs Jenkins 2.335 weather hover text shows "100%" over unbuilt jobs Jenkins 2.332.1 weather hover text shows "100%" over unbuilt jobs
          markewaite Mark Waite added a comment - - edited

          timja notes in his GitHub comment that this is not significant enough to justify backport for 2.332.1. Makes sense to me as well.  I've labeled it as rejected for 2.332.1.  We can reconsider it for 2.332.2 or later.

          markewaite Mark Waite added a comment - - edited timja notes in his GitHub comment that this is not significant enough to justify backport for 2.332.1. Makes sense to me as well.  I've labeled it as rejected for 2.332.1.  We can reconsider it for 2.332.2 or later.

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            jthomas Jonathan
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: