Skip to content

[JENKINS-68155] Fix state of previous labels when updating a node label #10501

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

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Apr 15, 2025

Conversation

Vlatombe
Copy link
Member

@Vlatombe Vlatombe commented Apr 4, 2025

Prior to #5882, trimLabels was global, so any node operation would cause all labels to be rebuilt.

After #5882, the labels to rebuild were taken from the current state of nodes. When updating a node label however, both the old label and the new label need to be rebuilt.

When a node labels are updated, the previous values are now saved aside in order to compute the proper labels to trim.

See JENKINS-68155.

Testing done

Proposed changelog entries

  • Fix state of labels removed from nodes

Proposed changelog category

/label bug

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

  • The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
  • The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
  • There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
  • New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
  • New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
  • New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
  • For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
  • For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

  • There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
  • Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
  • Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
  • Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
  • If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
  • If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

Prior to jenkinsci#5882, trimLabels was global, so any node operation would cause all labels to be rebuilt.

After jenkinsci#5882, the labels to rebuild were taken from the current state of nodes. When updating a node label however, both the old label and the new label needs to be rebuilt.

When a node labels are updated, the previous values are now saved aside in order to compute the proper labels to trim.
@comment-ops-bot comment-ops-bot bot added the bug For changelog: Minor bug. Will be listed after features label Apr 4, 2025
@Vlatombe Vlatombe marked this pull request as ready for review April 7, 2025 12:27
@Vlatombe Vlatombe requested a review from a team April 7, 2025 12:54
@Vlatombe Vlatombe requested a review from jglick April 8, 2025 06:46
Copy link

@A1exKH A1exKH left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

j.jenkins.updateNode(slave);
label = Label.get("label");
assertNotNull(label);
assertThat(label.getNodes(), empty());
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Expected: an empty collection
     but: <[hudson.slaves.DumbSlave[node]]>

without the patch

j.jenkins.updateNode(slave);
label = Label.get("label");
assertNotNull(label);
assertThat(label.getNodes(), empty());
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fails here without the patch

Expected: an empty collection
     but: <[hudson.slaves.DumbSlave[node]]>

@krisstern
Copy link
Member

/label ready-for-merge

This PR is now ready for merge, after ~24 hours, we will merge it if there's no negative feedback.

@comment-ops-bot comment-ops-bot bot added the ready-for-merge The PR is ready to go, and it will be merged soon if there is no negative feedback label Apr 14, 2025
@krisstern krisstern merged commit 983338f into jenkinsci:master Apr 15, 2025
18 checks passed
@Vlatombe Vlatombe deleted the JENKINS-68155 branch April 16, 2025 07:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug For changelog: Minor bug. Will be listed after features ready-for-merge The PR is ready to go, and it will be merged soon if there is no negative feedback
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants