Skip to content
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

[FIXED JENKINS-50561] Add rateLimitBuilds symbol #127

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 9, 2018

Conversation

abayer
Copy link
Member

@abayer abayer commented Aug 8, 2018

JENKINS-50561

I wanted to avoid "throttle" in the symbol, since that's already a
thing over in Throttle Concurrent Builds, and "throttle" means
something different there than it does here.

I wanted to avoid "throttle" in the symbol, since that's already a
thing over in Throttle Concurrent Builds, and "throttle" means
something different there than it does here.
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.

Sounds right, but do you have some integration test showing it being used successfully, e.g. in a Declarative options section? I ask because this is not your usual job property—it was originally designed to be added via branch property, i.e., in multibranch folder configuration rather than in Jenkinsfile. (In fact I think it was originally created for freestyle multibranch.)

@abayer
Copy link
Member Author

abayer commented Aug 10, 2018

Nope - good point. I'll work on that.

@abayer
Copy link
Member Author

abayer commented Aug 10, 2018

@abayer
Copy link
Member Author

abayer commented Aug 10, 2018

Debating whether RateLimitBranchProperty.Throttle should have a symbol too - honestly, I don't think so, if for no other reason than I can't think of a good name, and the rateLimitBuilds(throttle: [count: 1, durationName: 'day', userBoost: false]) syntax is Good Enough.

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