I have previously use Jenkins and BitBucket on premises and been able to have Jenkins notify bitbucket of the build condition of each individual branch (success, failed, in progress) however since I moved to bitbucket cloud it has started applying the condition of every build on every branch to every branch. For example if I have just a master and develop branch (to keep it simple) and the master branch failed because of some deployment configuration I am unable to merge a fix into it from develop even if develop is passing because it claims 1 of my 2 builds is failing on the develop branch.
This is tough to explain clearly in words so I've attached some pictures:
Two branches one build failing but both being marked as failed
Showing that develop branch is passing
Proof it wont let me merge
These notifications come from jenkins and have been set up using the standard cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source:2.9.7 plugin to scan my bit bucket cloud.
Okay so this was a really obvious mistake but I thought I would leave the reason why this happened here in case any one makes the same mistake. cloudbees-bitbucket-branch-source:2.9.7 notifies bitbucket using the commit ID, when creating the branch structure for the repository I branched off main to make develop and both got built but both had the same commit ID and so both were notified of both builds. The problem fixes it's self on the first cycle of code to run through it.
Related
Bitbucket's Pipelines can take a while to set up. I have them build on every Pull Request and Branch but by the time they get around to it, the branch can be gone.
I want Bitbucket to fail silently when it cannot find the branch. It doesn't matter to me if it aborts happily if it cannot find the branch. I do not want to receive messages of the following form:
Attempt 3 of 6 failed.
Retrying in 4 seconds
Cloning into '/opt/atlassian/pipelines/agent/build'...
warning: Could not find remote branch important_assert to clone.
Essentially, I would like to edit the "Build Setup" section to prevent Bitbucket from warning me at all in this case.
Context for why
If I make an edit to a README.md in the repo, I'm not going to hang around to see if the pipeline works. I am going to make the change, someone is going to read it, and then I'm going to merge it before Bitbucket gets around to building it. Once I've merged it, I'm going to delete the branch because it's not of much use to me lying there.
Gitea recommends a separate Gitea Plugin for Jenkins. I'm puzzled why two identical builds are triggered when a PR is created.
I'm trying to achieve the following:
Without a PR, a push to a branch should NOT trigger a build
Every time a PR is requested in Gitea, a build is triggered for the PR.
If a new revision pushed to the branch for which a PR is created, another check build should be triggered
It's kinda working... But for some reasons two builds are created. Could someone please explain, what are these pipeline/head and pipeline/pr-master builds, and why there are two of them?
Here is the relevant part of my Jenkins configuration. I understand that this selection is a "legacy" one, however it's the only one that allows me to build only on PR. If I select the "recommended" one, then every push triggers a build, which is not what I want.
Thanks!
Answering my own question. Awwww what a silly sausage I am. The only thing that needed to be done was removing the "Discover branches" behaviour. And, naturally, it stops discovering "just branches" :) For some reasons I did not realise I can remove the default behaviours.
For our projects have Integration and Master branch. For deployment we cut a RC branch off Integration. Once deploy is complete we create Pull request for RC to Master.
However, now Master shows as 1 ahead because it has a commit that does not exist in Integration. I considered to create Pull request RC to Integration as well, but TFS does not allow it since there are no changes.
Is there a way to avoid this situation with Master? Can behind/ahead only check the code changes and not commits? To fix this I now have to create Pull Master to Integration, and that is a pain for all the projects we do.
Afraid not able to avoid this situation. It's also not possible to make behind/ahead only check the code changes and not commits. Since you are using Pull Request (which execute git merge --no-ff).
To be honest, it's not necessary to resolve Integration branch behind/ahead master.
you can have two mostly independent branches without any problems. The important measure of differences between branches is given by git diff. If this reports no differences, then it's Ok.
You could also take a look at this similar question: VSTS Git: Is it necesary to resolve dev branch behind/ahead master and if so how?
If you insist on avoid the ahead on Master, you may have to create Pull Master to Integration as you have pointed out in the question.
I'm setting up a new Jenkins job using multibranch pipeline and I have noticed that when a branch is deleted, it only has a strikethrough and isn't actually removed on Jenkins. This is solved by re-running branch indexing. However, I cannot really use this as it will also cause every other branch to rebuild (a consequence of how the repository is updated). Is there some custom code or pipeline/script I can run to re-index without building?
I've already looked at various UI methods such as suppressing SCM triggers, but this also negates push events from Github which is something we want to use.
The deleted/merged branch build will disappear after a period of time (<24 hours). It is not removed immediately to show the recently deleted/merged branches and give a chance to review the prior build statuses. It is relatively harmless since the jobs for these branches are deactivated (read-only).
Note that the removal is based on the branch indexing job running at regular interval, so if you have this disabled, it probably won't do it (not sure the SCM webhook calls are enough).
I would like to achieve the following setup in Travis CI.
Do a build whenever commits are pushed to dev or release branches only.
Disable builds whenever commits are pushed to any other branch apart from dev or release but build pull requests.
If a developer is really interested to know if his commits are good, then he should be able to kick start a build on Travis CI explicitly by choosing a branch/commit.
From reading the documentation on Travis CI and some blog posts, I see that I can achieve "1." and "2."
Does anyone know how to make "3." work?
Update-1:
The reason I want scenario "3." is because the developers in our team (or in general any other team) make several commits and push them even before they send out a pull request. Building for every single commit of a private branch even before it goes for a pull request is causing lot of requests to queue up in the Travis CI queue which unnecessarily blocks developers who really care to verify a particular commit to check if everything is good or not before sending out a pull request.
Having the following is just fine for us:
Build on every commit push to dev and release branches
Build on every commit pushed to a pull request
You can easily achieve 1 and 2 by whitelisting the branches you want to see push builds for:
branches:
only:
- dev
- release
For reference, see https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/customizing-the-build/#Whitelisting-or-blacklisting-branches.
You can achieve 3 only if your developers open a PR against one of the whitelisted branches.
I'd personally recommend to open a PR as early as possible (after the first commit), as it makes work in progress visible to everyone who is interested.