Problem with PR builds

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Problem with PR builds

Mark Frazier
I have resubmitted my PR and it built fine with the new Jenkins config.

However, the build was still marked as bad. I can’t see the config settings on that job,
can somebody (Justin?) address this problem?

Is there something I should be doing differently?

Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with PR builds

Justin Bertram-2
The Jenkins job was attempting to publish JUnit reports at the end of the build and that was failing the build (since there were no reports available).  I removed that post-build step.  Let's see how it goes now.


Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Frazier" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:04:13 PM
Subject: Problem with PR builds

I have resubmitted my PR and it built fine with the new Jenkins config.

However, the build was still marked as bad. I can’t see the config settings on that job,
can somebody (Justin?) address this problem?

Is there something I should be doing differently?

Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with PR builds

Mark Frazier
That worked.

Thanks!

> On Apr 16, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The Jenkins job was attempting to publish JUnit reports at the end of the build and that was failing the build (since there were no reports available).  I removed that post-build step.  Let's see how it goes now.
>
>
> Justin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Frazier" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:04:13 PM
> Subject: Problem with PR builds
>
> I have resubmitted my PR and it built fine with the new Jenkins config.
>
> However, the build was still marked as bad. I can’t see the config settings on that job,
> can somebody (Justin?) address this problem?
>
> Is there something I should be doing differently?
>
> Thanks.
>