Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-60299

Make build description in build history widget configurable or possible to hide

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • Improvement
    • Status: Resolved (View Workflow)
    • Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • core
    • None
    • Jenkins ver. 2.205, reproduced in browsers Chrome stable, Firefox and Edge Beta (insider preview)
    • Jenkins 2.223

    Description

      This relates to JENKINS-19760 and JENKINS-31209 resolved by https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4209 where build description in build history widget is no longer truncated. A regression of this is that for elaborate build descriptions the build history widget becomes unusable.

      The change did not sit well with our organization as our build descriptions are quite extensive. We use groovy code to parse log output which results in a big html blob containing details about versions, servers, errors, warns git commit and details, related jira issues etc. This html is then used as build description which results in nice reports when the user views the job details:

      The issue after the change related to JENKINS-19760 and JENKINS-31209 is that this full html report is also displayed in the build history widget which practically makes the widget unusable:

      Possible solutions:

      • Have truncation length (maxDescrLength) configurable.
      • Possibility to hide build description in build history widget.

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            danielbeck Daniel Beck added a comment -

            As I wrote above:

            So is this done for now? If so, this should be resolved and marked as addressed in 2.223, otherwise I expect it won't make it into 2.222.1.

            Good news, the RC for 2.135.1 is out, so now is a great time to test that release and report issues: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jenkinsci-dev/qxH30i-3-bQ/cq6-9lQOAgAJ

            danielbeck Daniel Beck added a comment - As I wrote above: So is this done for now? If so, this should be resolved and marked as addressed in 2.223, otherwise I expect it won't make it into 2.222.1. Good news, the RC for 2.135.1 is out, so now is a great time to test that release and report issues: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jenkinsci-dev/qxH30i-3-bQ/cq6-9lQOAgAJ
            harrygg Harry G. added a comment -

            danielbeck Maybe I don't understand you workflow, but according to Changelog, it's also not in 2.235.1 ?!?
            How do such things get into LTS?!?

            You said:
            > As I wrote above:
            >> So is this done for now? If so, this should be resolved and marked as addressed in 2.223, otherwise I expect it won't make it into 2.222.1.

            But on the very same day (2020-03-11), me and peder_dsb immediately tested and confirmed that it is resolved and can be closed! After 222.1, we had additional 4 LTS releases without this fix!
            Additionally also I confirmed this in the PR https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4529

            What else could we do? Should I as a user close this issue and "mark it as addressed in 2.223" however that is done???

            harrygg Harry G. added a comment - danielbeck Maybe I don't understand you workflow, but according to Changelog, it's also not in 2.235.1 ?!? How do such things get into LTS?!? You said: > As I wrote above: >> So is this done for now? If so, this should be resolved and marked as addressed in 2.223, otherwise I expect it won't make it into 2.222.1. But on the very same day (2020-03-11), me and peder_dsb immediately tested and confirmed that it is resolved and can be closed! After 222.1, we had additional 4 LTS releases without this fix! Additionally also I confirmed this in the PR https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4529 What else could we do? Should I as a user close this issue and "mark it as addressed in 2.223" however that is done???
            danielbeck Daniel Beck added a comment -

            according to Changelog

            The LTS changelog doesn't list every change between LTS baselines. Nobody would read that. That's why the title is "Notable changes". If it's in 2.223, and hasn't been backed out by 2.235, and isn't listed in the specific backports of 2.235.1 (which is a complete list), it's in.

            danielbeck Daniel Beck added a comment - according to Changelog The LTS changelog doesn't list every change between LTS baselines. Nobody would read that. That's why the title is "Notable changes". If it's in 2.223, and hasn't been backed out by 2.235, and isn't listed in the specific backports of 2.235.1 (which is a complete list), it's in.
            harrygg Harry G. added a comment -

            danielbeck, OK, thanks for the clarification!

            Works fine in 2.235.1
            You can close this one...

            harrygg Harry G. added a comment - danielbeck , OK, thanks for the clarification! Works fine in 2.235.1 You can close this one...
            oleg_nenashev Oleg Nenashev added a comment -

            It was released in Jenkins 2.223 in March.  https://www.jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.223

            oleg_nenashev Oleg Nenashev added a comment - It was released in Jenkins 2.223 in March.   https://www.jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.223

            People

              oleg_nenashev Oleg Nenashev
              peder_dsb Peder Schmedling
              Votes:
              2 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              8 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: