Details
-
Bug
-
Status: Closed (View Workflow)
-
Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
Description
After upgrading workflow-api from 2.7 to 2.8, blueocean tests started failing. After debugging with svanoort it was discovered an extra event from next branch was was received (so two input step events for left branch in stead of one) from this sample pipeline script below. It results in to incorrect visualization of steps when user selects parallel branch nodes.
node {
stage "hey"
sh "echo yeah"
stage "par"
parallel left : {
sh "echo OMG BS"
echo "running"
def branchInput = input message: 'Please input branch to test against', parameters: [[$class: 'StringParameterDefinition', defaultValue: 'master', description: '', name: 'branch']]
echo "BRANCH NAME: ${branchInput}"
sh "echo yeah"
},
right : {
sh "echo wozzle"
def branchInput = input message: 'MF Please input branch to test against', parameters: [[$class: 'StringParameterDefinition', defaultValue: 'master', description: '', name: 'branch']]
echo "BRANCH NAME: ${branchInput}"
}
stage "ho"
sh "echo done"
}
Here are the events generated and this is extra event generated failing test: https://gist.github.com/vivek/ccf3a4ef25fbff267c76c962d265041d#file-event-log-log-L3.
Attachments
Issue Links
- blocks
-
-
- Resolved
-
- links to
Activity
Note that we still have these tests failing after upgrading workflow-api
io.jenkins.blueocean.rest.impl.pipeline.PipelineNodeTest.abortInput
io.jenkins.blueocean.rest.impl.pipeline.PipelineNodeTest.waitForInputTest
io.jenkins.blueocean.rest.impl.pipeline.PipelineNodeTest.submitInput
io.jenkins.blueocean.rest.impl.pipeline.PipelineNodeTest.nodesWithPartialParallels
Sam Van Oort
added a comment - @vivek This is awaiting your review (along with other fixes) in https://github.com/jenkinsci/workflow-api-plugin/pull/33
Sam Van Oort
added a comment - @ vivek This is awaiting your review (along with other fixes) in https://github.com/jenkinsci/workflow-api-plugin/pull/33 Sam Van Oort
added a comment - Fixed with explicit test coverage in workflow-api 2.12 
vivek After quite a bit of digging, I've got the full cause of the issue, tests that reproduce it and greatly extend test coverage, and think I know how to solve this,
JENKINS-38536, and another bug or two in one swoop – though it is quite complex to implement.I may have to rewrite some of the more complex internal pieces to do this the right way though.