-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 469
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
fixes #337 by setting the client properly #345
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Travis failed b/c of one test: NoExecutorStartedGetJobXmlIT.getJobXmlShouldReturnTheExpectedConfigXml(). I can easily fix this test by adjusting the expected XML, but I wonder if this is really a useful test? |
<defaultExcludes>true</defaultExcludes> | ||
<caseSensitive>true</caseSensitive> | ||
</hudson.tasks.ArtifactArchiver> | ||
</publishers> |
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.
Can you explain why you have change the content of that file?
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.
Well, I need a job that actually does archive some files to get a proper Artifact object in NoExecutorStartedGetJobDetailsIT#shouldCheckTheBuildCause().
assertThat(details.getArtifacts()).isNotNull(); | ||
assertThat(details.getArtifacts().size()).isEqualTo(2); | ||
details.getArtifacts().forEach(a -> assertThat(a.getClient()).isNotNull()); | ||
|
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.
Is there a good reason why you changed the behaviour of this integration test?
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, this is required to test that "artifact.getClient()" is properly set (i.e. not null). But I guess it might be better to have a dedicated test method instead?
update from upstream/master
No description provided.