Skip to content

Conversation

@ringerc
Copy link
Contributor

@ringerc ringerc commented Nov 7, 2018

@jglick jglick changed the title Document error handling in the 'parallel' step [JENKINS-54514] Document error handling in the 'parallel' step Nov 7, 2018
@ringerc
Copy link
Contributor Author

ringerc commented Nov 7, 2018

The checks failed due to what appears to be network issues with the Windows builder.

Copy link
Member

@jglick jglick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@bitwiseman
Copy link
Contributor

@ringerc What do you think of the suggestions?

@ringerc
Copy link
Contributor Author

ringerc commented Jun 15, 2019 via email

@bitwiseman
Copy link
Contributor

@ringerc Any update here? I'd apply the commits myself but I don't have permissions. I'd like to be able to merge this change.

@nickoe
Copy link

nickoe commented Jun 18, 2020

@ringerc @bitwiseman It looks like this has been lost in time.

Copy link
Member

@dwnusbaum dwnusbaum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added some comments. It would be great to also apply Jesse's comments/suggestions.

<code>Throwable.addSuppresssed(...)</code>.
</p>
<p>
Note that a <code>hudson.AbortException</code>, as thrown by failing
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

AbortException is not necessarily thrown by failing steps.

I think mentioning AbortException is misleading since it doesn't have any special interaction with the parallel step.

the first failed script.
</p>
<p>
Note: Branch closures should just return <code>null</code>. The return
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would move this paragraph above the preceding one, and reword it slightly. Since we don't want anyone to rely on the current behavior I think it is best not to mention what that behavior is directly.

      Note: Branch closures should just return <code>null</code>. The return
      value of the <code>parallel</code> step should be ignored; See JENKINS-26033.

Co-authored-by: Jesse Glick <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Devin Nusbaum <[email protected]>
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.

5 participants