Hi,

as my developers keep asking about this I am re-sending my question.

If a long-running test job is started after 2 or more faster compiles went
through, I am only getting the changes for the last compile inside the
email (with email-extension plugin). What I would like to have instead are
the changes in dependency if there has been more than 1 compile between the
test runs.

So I would be happy If I could use something like

${CHANGES_IN_DEPENDENCY_SINCE_LAST_SUCCESS, showPaths=true, pathformat="%p"}

which falls back to

${CHANGES_SINCE_LAST_SUCCESS, showPaths=true, pathformat="%p"}

if those are the same (1 to 1 relation between compile/test).

Is this a request for a new feature or is it already possible to achieve
this via groovy templating?!?

Thanks for helping out
Dirk

2012/11/22 Dirk Kuypers <kuypers.d...@gmail.com>

> Hi,
>
> I have a compile job that runs continuously triggered by SCM which starts
> about 40 or 50 test jobs after successful compilation.
> I am printing the changes since last success (coming from the upstream
> compile job) of a test job which is run after a compile job like this:
> ${CHANGES_SINCE_LAST_SUCCESS, showPaths=true, pathformat="%p"}
>
> This has worked until I began to allow the compile job to run concurrently
> because the feedback cycle was getting too long recently with compile times
> of 6 minutes and test times up to more than 20 minutes and changes of more
> than one developer getting mixed up into one build. Now it can happen that
> I have several compiles before a special test is running again. Looking at
> the build of the test Jenkins handles this correctly because it says:
>
> No changes from last build. Changes in dependency
>
>    1. JobContinuous [image: Success]#9601 → [image: Success]#9605 (detail)
>
>
> Clicking on details I get all changes summarized for those 5 builds.
>
> The email only prints nothing. If there is a 1 to 1 relation between
> compile and test, emailing the changes works.
>
> Is this a bug/feature request? Am I doing something wrong there?
>
> BR
> Dirk
>

Reply via email to