Skip to content

Improved LAUNCH_DIAGNOSTICS behavior#561

Draft
jglick wants to merge 3 commits into
jenkinsci:masterfrom
jglick:LAUNCH_DIAGNOSTICS
Draft

Improved LAUNCH_DIAGNOSTICS behavior#561
jglick wants to merge 3 commits into
jenkinsci:masterfrom
jglick:LAUNCH_DIAGNOSTICS

Conversation

@jglick
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jglick jglick commented May 28, 2026

While working on jenkinsci/kubernetes-plugin#2837 I rediscovered jenkinsci/kubernetes-plugin#871 (comment). Simplifying the launcher behavior when this flag is set, to actually check the wrapper status and log output normally. It is possible we could just make this behavior unconditional (only calling quiet(true) normally) but that would require more careful testing.

jglick added a commit to jglick/kubernetes-plugin that referenced this pull request May 29, 2026
… getting `KubernetesPipelineTest#runInPodWithDifferentShell` to pass requires jenkinsci/durable-task-plugin#561 (see jenkinsci#871).
long currentTimestamp = getLogFile(workspace).lastModified();
if (currentTimestamp == 0) {
listener.getLogger().println("process apparently never started in " + controlDir);
if (!LAUNCH_DIAGNOSTICS) {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why was this change from the LAUNCH_DIAGNOSTIC field?
the change means that termination diagnostics will always reflect the latest change of the property, yet the launching diagnostics does not and requires a restart (or setting via the script console).

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is part of another class, and I did not wish to introduce a new serialized boolean field. Since this clause should rarely be encountered, and usually the property would be set at startup, this seemed close enough.

@jglick jglick marked this pull request as draft May 29, 2026 13:15
@jglick
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

jglick commented May 29, 2026

I need to verify whether the join works with the binary wrapper. I hope it forks a clone and exits the main process, akin to the Bourne shell wrapper script, but I do not recall the details.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants