Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[JENKINS-73900] Un-inline JS in
ModuleLocation/config.jelly
and fix validation logic #319[JENKINS-73900] Un-inline JS in
ModuleLocation/config.jelly
and fix validation logic #319Changes from 7 commits
c94d7ab
d3d8ef7
1895dc4
cc487b9
7fb59bd
a574c02
13bd3cf
2e2de5f
80738a0
1bd302a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Check warning on line 2566 in src/main/java/hudson/scm/SubversionSCM.java
ci.jenkins.io / Code Coverage
Not covered lines
Check warning on line 3204 in src/main/java/hudson/scm/SubversionSCM.java
ci.jenkins.io / Open Tasks Scanner
TODO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I expect this will fall apart if we try to define a second location in the configuration, because you selectors will return arrays of elements. Could you check how it behaves in that case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nevermind, disregard "arrays of elements", you're using
querySelector
, notquerySelectorAll
. Either way I'm concerned whether this is going to work when we try to define multiple locations.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see what you're saying.
In this case, each time you add a module, the checkUrl and checkCredentials is correctly called for the corresponding module, however, the validation for the excludedRevprop only works on the module that was added first.
We can discuss this on the call this morning
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorted it out on a call.
excludeRevProp
validation previously has referenced credentialsId and remote URL or the first module that was defined. While this behavior seems wrong it is preserved here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need to dispatch the event here? Is that supposed to retrigger the validation for
excludedRevprop
field when we change eitherremote
orcredentialsId
? Is that how it worked before your change?I don't like it personally, I'd prefer to have it triggered only when
excludedRevprop
loses focus. But disregard my comment if it worked like this before, who am I to judge :)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that is the way it was "supposed" to work before. Although it wasn't working correctly.
I think it makes sense as we should validate the excluded revProp whenever remote or credentials changes as well as when excluded revProp itself changes