-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.9k
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
[JENKINS-71737] fix redirect when submitting cloud changes #8505
Merged
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
acb34c3
update cloud config redirect, remove unused cloudName variable
car-roll 40f0c35
remove apply button
car-roll f79afd8
Merge branch 'master' into redirect2
car-roll 3446e00
Merge branch 'master' into redirect2
car-roll 0f5de07
Merge branch 'master' into redirect2
NotMyFault File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -231,7 +231,6 @@ private void handleNewCloudPage(Descriptor<Cloud> descriptor, String name, Stapl | |
checkName(name); | ||
JSONObject formData = req.getSubmittedForm(); | ||
formData.put("name", name); | ||
formData.put("cloudName", name); // ec2 uses that field name | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. ec2 no longer uses that filed name |
||
formData.remove("mode"); // Cloud descriptors won't have this field. | ||
req.setAttribute("instance", formData); | ||
req.setAttribute("descriptor", descriptor); | ||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
for what it's worth, I think return
FormApply.success("../..");
is the quick fix for the issue. Due to the underlying urlmanage/cloud/xyz/configure
. You will always be in.../configure
so you are forced to get back to the overall cloud listing page. If you want some elegance you test whether the name has not changed, then use the old way. However, since index.jelly is e.g. in kubernetes plugin a blank page and doing"."
leads to it I would rather be redirected to the overall cloud page, but that is me as a user.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@scherler
..
was the original fix, but I think the main issue with that was that a quick fix was not desired, but rather a proper way to address the UX behaviorSee #8310 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a bug is a bug and should be fixed. Any follow-up should be addressed after that. That is just my 2 cents being a fan of iterations. The follow-up cost for any downstream plugin/code is to fix it themselves while we boil the ocean, which does not make sense at all. I know there will be a lot of "the follow-up never will come" excuses to not fix a BUG but that is a completely different discussion IMHO if the fix is
../..
and the behavior before the breaking change is back, there should not be a discussion. Really questionable why the fix has not landed 24 h after the PR had been filed. 🤷♂️