Skip to content

Update job status based on parallel and rerun job status #6185

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

Draft
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sophia-guo
Copy link
Contributor

Close #6000

Copy link
Contributor

@karianna karianna left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel that overall we have a state machine here. Might be worth taking a 1,000 foot step back and rethinking how this is designed / coded with that in mind.

@@ -1427,7 +1427,8 @@ def generateJob (newJobs, childTest, testJobName) {
* - rerun due to test job in FAILURE state - RERUN_FAILURE is true and rerunTestJobParams cannot be empty
* If the JOB_NAME contains _rerun, _testList_ or _iteration_, rerun job will not be triggered at the same level.
*/
def triggerRerunJob (rerunTestJobParams) {
//rerunTestJobParams should be part of return of the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Comment seems cut off?

def rerunResults = archiveChildJobTap(childJobs, originalStatus)
currentBuild.result = rerunResults.jobStatus
} else {
echo " Either all rerun succeed or there are aborted?"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't quite parse for me

@sophia-guo sophia-guo marked this pull request as draft April 15, 2025 03:52
@andrew-m-leonard
Copy link
Contributor

I feel that overall we have a state machine here. Might be worth taking a 1,000 foot step back and rethinking how this is designed / coded with that in mind.

It's certainly a little complex.. but i'd rather take that point as a new "issue". This PR is essential to be able to determine jck success for public users who do not have access to tck.........

@smlambert
Copy link
Contributor

I am going to add some documentation / table in the original issue to help clarify the expected behaviour in the various cases.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

With rerun feature enabled, test job status may not be correct
4 participants