I have a job in Jenkins called notification_job which uses the "Build after other projects are built" trigger. The list of jobs will be around 25 and continue to grow. The notification_job needs to know the triggering build's name and build number.
I would like all of the configuration to be done through the notification_job, not through the triggering jobs as that list will grow and become a pain to manage. So how can I retrieve the build name and number in the child job?
Jenkins version is 2.19.3
Thank you,
Duke
I was able to pull the data with a groovy script
import hudson.model.Cause
for (cause in build.getCauses()) {
if (cause instanceof Cause.UpstreamCause) {
println cause.getUpstreamProject()
println cause.getUpstreamBuild()
}
}
Related
I have a Jenkins job set up to poll for a change in a git repository every 10 minutes. If it doesn't find one (99/100 times, this is what happens) it aborts the build early and marks it as UNSTABLE . If it finds a change, it goes through with it and marks it as SUCCESS, storing its artifacts. I know I can use a plugin to discard old builds, but it only allows for these options:
As you can see, there is no option to filter by completion status.
Ideally, I want to discard all but the latest UNSTABLE build and keep all SUCCESS or FAILED builds and their artifacts. If this is not possible, simply discarding all UNSTABLE builds would also work.
Note: I am using a declarative Pipeline
One possibility would be to discard builds programmatically. Get your job object with def job = Jenkins.instance.getItem("JobName") Since you are using declarative pipeline, job is of type WorkflowJob [1] and you can get all its builds with
job.getBuilds(). Now you can check the result of each build (WorkflowRun objects [2]) and decide if you want to delete it or not. Something like follows should work
def job = Jenkins.instance.getItem("JobName")
job.getBuilds().each {
if(it.result.toString() == "UNSTABLE") {
it.delete()
job.save()
}
}
You could create a new job that executes the code above and is triggered after YourJob has been built.
[1] https://javadoc.jenkins.io/plugin/workflow-job/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/job/WorkflowJob.html
[2] https://javadoc.jenkins.io/plugin/workflow-job/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/job/WorkflowRun.html
I am developing software for an embedded device. The steps involved in building and verifying it all are complicated: creating the build environment (via containers), building the actual SD card image, running unit tests, automated tests on target hardware, license compliance checks and so on - details aren't important here.
Currently I have this in one long declarative Jenkinsfile as a multibranch-pipeline (for all intents and purpose here, we're doing gitflow). In doing this I've hit a limit on the size of a Jenkinsfile (https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-37984) and can't actually get all the stages in that I want to.
It's too big so i need to cut this massive pipeline up. I broke this all up in little pipeline jobs with parameters to pass data/context between each part of the pipeline and came up with something like this:
I've colour-coded the A and B artifacts as they're used a lot and the lines would make things messy. What this tries to show is an order of running things, where things in a column depend on artifacts created in column to the left.
I'm struggling to discover how to do the "waiting" for multiple upstream jobs (for instance in Job Foxtrot in the diagram) before starting another downstream job that depends on them.
I specifically do not want to turn each column in the diagram into a parallel group of things, because for instance Job Delta might take 2 minutes but Job Charlie take 20 minutes. The exact duration of each job is variable and unpredictable as for some parameter combinations will mean building from scratch and others will cause an existing artifact to be output.
I think I need something like the join plugin (https://plugins.jenkins.io/join/), but for pipeline jobs (join only works on freestyle jobs and is quite aged).
The one approach I've explored is to have a "controller" job (maybe job Alpha in the diagram?) that uses the build step (https://www.jenkins.io/doc/pipeline/steps/pipeline-build-step/_) with the wait parameter set to false to trigger the downstream jobs in correct order, with the correct parameters. It would involve searching Jenkins.instance.getItems() to locate the Runs for the downstream projects, which have an upstream cause that matches the currently executing "controller" job. This involves polling waiting for the job to appear and then polling for the job to complete. This feels like I'm "doing it wrong". Below is the source for this polling approach - be gentle, i'm new to groovy!
Is this polling approach a good way? What problems could I encounter with this approach? Should I be using the ItemListener Jenkins ExtensionPoint and writing a plugin to do this sort of thing in a generic way? Is there another way I've not found?
I feel like I'm not "holding it right" when it comes to the overall pipeline design/architecture here.
Finally after writing this I notice that Jobs India, Juliet and Kilo could be collapsed into a single Job, but I don't think that solve much.
#NonCPS
Integer getTriggeredBuildNumber(String project, String causeJobName, Integer causeBuildNumber) {
//find the job/project first
def job = Jenkins.instance.getAllItems(org.jenkinsci.plugins.workflow.job.WorkflowJob.class).find { job -> job.getFullName() == project }
//find a build for this job that was caused by the current build
def build = job.getBuilds().find { build ->
build.getCauses().findAll{ it.class == hudson.model.Cause.UpstreamCause.class }.find { cause ->
cause.getUpstreamProject() == causeJobName && cause.getUpstreamBuild() == causeBuildNumber
} != null
}
if(build != null) {
return build.getNumber()
} else {
return -1
}
}
#NonCPS
Boolean isBuildComplete(String jobName, Integer buildNumber) {
def job = Jenkins.instance.getAllItems(org.jenkinsci.plugins.workflow.job.WorkflowJob.class).find { job -> job.getFullName() == jobName }
if(job) {
def build = job.getBuildByNumber(buildNumber)
return build.isBuilding() == false && build.getResult() != null
} else {
println "WARNING: job '" + jobName + "' not found."
return false
}
}
We've hit the "Code too large" too many times, but the way to cope with it is to refactor your pipeline to remain deep under the limit. The following may be used:
You can run a combination of scripted and declarative pipeline. So some stages in the beginning and/or in the end may be refactored out.
You can build some of the parallel stages dynamically. This code would not be counted towards the limited code size.
Lastly, the issue mentions transformation variables, and that can help too.
We used the combination of the above and have expanded our pipeline well beyond what it was when we first encountered the issue you're facing.
I have apps and their codes on git repositories. Also jenkinsfiles for building apps and these files on another repository. The problem is jenkins builds changelog. Jenkins add jenkinsfiles changelog to build changesets and I don't want to that. Because these changes are according to infrastructure not relevant with apps. How to prevent this? I didn't find any workaround or solution.
If I got well your question... I don't think you can remove Jenkinsfile changes from the change set that Jenkins reads from git, but instead, you can skip your pipeline to build if there are only changes on Jenkinsfile.
If it helps...
First place, you need to read the change set:
def changedFiles = []
for (changeLogSet in currentBuild.changeSets) {
for (entry in changeLogSet.getItems()) {
for (file in entry.getAffectedFiles()) {
changedFiles.add(file.getPath())
}
}
}
Then, you can check if it is only Jenkinsfile:
if (changedFiles.size() == 1 && changedFiles[0] == "Jenkinsfile"){
println "Only Jenkinsfile has changed... Skipping build..."
currentBuild.getRawBuild().getExecutor().interrupt(Result.SUCCESS) // this skips your build prematurely and makes the rest of the stages green
sleep(1) // you just need this
}else{
println "There are other changes rather than only Jenkinsfile, build will proceed."
}
P.S. You have several ways to terminate the jobs earlier without failing the build, but this one is the cleanest in my experience, even though you need to allow some Admin Signatures Permission on Jenkins (I've seen it in another thread here some time ago, can't find it now though)
I am using a Jenkins pipeline script and when all nodes are offline, the builds keep on queuing up. How do I stop Jenkins from adding jobs to the queue while all slaves are offline?
pipeline {
triggers {
pollSCM('H/3 * * * 1-5')
}
}
Is your agent's availability configured to 'Keep this agent online as much as possible' ?
One way to tackle this situation is, run the below script on master node and build your pipeline(s) only if at least one of the nodes is online. You can pass the online node name to your downstream job as a parameter.
def axis = []
for (slave in jenkins.model.Jenkins.instance.getNodes()) {
if (slave.toComputer().isOnline()) {
axis += slave.getDisplayName()
}
}
return axis
Above script source: Jenkins: skip if node is offline
Other links that may help are:
Monitor and restart your slave nodes - https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Monitor+and+Restart+Offline+Slaves
I found this script handy in some situations:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins-scripts/blob/master/scriptler/clearBuildQueue.groovy
I'm not into pipeline jobs, but for regular freestyle jobs, this kind of queueing will only happen if your builds are parameterized. Seperate builds are needed then to ensure that the project will run seperately for each and every parameter value (it does not matter whether the value is actually different).
So, removing build parameters in your project might solve the problem.
On my team, we have a project that we want to do continuous-integration-style testing on. Our build takes around 2 hours and is triggered by the "Poll SCM" trigger (using Perforce as the server), and we have two build nodes.
Currently, if someone checks in a change, one build node will start up pretty much right away, but if another change gets checked in, the other node will not kick in, as it's waiting for the previous job to finish. However, I could like the other build node to start a build with the newer checkin as soon as possible, so that we can maximize the amount of continuous testing that's occurring (so that if e.g. one build fails we know sooner rather than later).
Is there any simple way to configure a Jenkins job (using Poll SCM against a Perforce server) to not block while another instance of the job is already running?
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the project it's not possible to simply break the project up into multiple build jobs that get pipelined across multiple slaves (as much as I'd like to change it to work in this way).
Use the "Execute concurrent builds if necessary" option in Jenkins configuration.
Just to register here in case someone needs it, in the version I'm using (Jenkins 2.249.3) I had to uncheck the option Do not allow concurrent builds in the child job that is called multiple times from the parent job.
The code is more or less like that:
stage('STAGE IN THE PARENT JOB') {
def subParallelJobs = [:]
LIST_OF_PARAMETERS = LIST_OF_PARAMETERS.split(",")
for (int i = 0; i < LIST_OF_PARAMETERS.size(); i++) {
MY_PARAMETER_VALUE = LIST_OF_PARAMETERS[i].trim()
MY_KEY_USING_THE_PARAMETER_TO_MAKE_IT_UNIQUE = "JOB_KEY_${MY_PARAMETER_VALUE}"
def jobParams = [ string(name: 'MY_JOB_PARAMETER', value: MY_PARAMETER_VALUE) ]
subParallelJobs.put("MY_KEY_USING_THE_PARAMETER_TO_MAKE_IT_UNIQUE", {build (job: "MY_CHILD_JOB", parameters: jobParams)})
}
parallel(subParallelJobs)
}
}