We are trying to implement a new method for our QA team.
I have looked around the setting but couldn't find an answer:
Is it possible to prevent them from dragging the task to 'Done' if they haven't added a test case into it?
On the same logic - can we block the 'committed' column from them if they haven't added a bug to the task?
Thank you.
There is currently no build-in feature to help you achieve this directly.
Here is a work around for your demand:
Create a new filed named "TestCaseLinked"
Every time a Test Case is linked to the task WIT, you need to manually put a value into this field. And use the WIT rule to check the value when changing the WIT status to "Done"
Related
How can i set the work order status to release using a workflow?
I have tried the set field value action however it seems that the work order status is not an option.
If your choice of doing that using a workflow. Please create a workflow action script to set the work order status.
I have created a new workflow for activate later. It includes a custom workflow process step written by me. The custom step changes some properties of the payload step and then Activate Page process is called to activate the page. The changed properties are reflected in the author instance but not on the publish instance. Just wanted to confirm if this is possible or the workflow creates a copy of the node and then executes on it (like passing a parameter to a function)?
Thanks in advance :D
It should work fine, however you have to commit changes using resourceResolver.commit()
Here is some weird behavior of ADF Author/Deploy UI that I came across. You will see the same if you try.
Open any existing pipeline in ADF, in any of its activity (e.g. my activity type is HDInsightHive) within policy block there is an option called:-
"executionPriorityOrder": "NewestFirst",
if you hover over it, you see another valid value for this is OldestFirst, so if you change this to:-
"executionPriorityOrder": "OldestFirst",
Click on Deploy. After deploying & provisioning, again open that pipeline and you will notice that now the entire executionPriorityOrder statement missing. Is it because OldestFirst is default or something?
That's correct, "OldestFirst" is the default value for executionPriorityOrder. In this property's case, the default value is not displayed. I agree this can be confusing, however the value is in fact being preserved in the defintion for your pipeline.
P.S. Sorry for the very late response. The ADF team is making a push to respond more quickly to community forum questions.
I am stuck at a point where I run a perl script through jenkins and I want a conditional email notification to be sent.
For eg ..
if at the end of script the value of a certain variable is > 1 then send the email notification
else
dont send
Can anybody help me with this ? or knows a better way to do this ?
This can be solved using
Email-ext plug-in
https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Email-ext+plugin
And you can use the above link to view information regarding plugin
if i'm correct you want to send mails based on your build condition result.
you can use triggers for this in Editable email notification.
you can use post build step and pre build steps to trigger emails based on your conditions
you need to write a script for your requirement and place it in post & pre build steps.
I haven't any of this, however:
There is an Any Build Step plugin. Among other things, it allows post-build actions to be executed as build steps. In theory, this should allow you to execute "Editable Email Notification" post-build step as a build step. This is the biggest wildcard in this solution. Try this first. I don't know if the email notification will work properly when done before the Jenkins' "build cycle" of a job is complete.
Next, there is Conditional Build Step plugin. It allows you to execute a build step based on various conditions.
If you were able to trigger email in the middle of the build cycle with "Any Build Step" plugin, you should be able to wrap it with the "Conditional Build Step" plugin to be executed conditionally.
Let me know if this actually works
I was having a similar condition where I need to send out an email when jenkins build log has a string. Here is how I handled in the presend script of the jenkins job.
logger.println(build.getLog(50))
if (build.getLog(50).contains("NoChangesPresent")) {
cancel = true;
}
I am trying to get the last 50 lines of build log and search through it to see if there is a string present. If it is present then I am setting cancel to true which would stop triggering the email from jenkins.
Hope this helps.
I like siri's answer. There is one think missing.
logger.println(build.getLog(50)) if
(build.getLog(50).toString().contains("NoChangesPresent")) { cancel = true; }
It doesn't appear that contains will function without converting it first to a string. Good luck!
I have created a custom workflow activity that copies attachments from a case to an email, both supplied as Lookup parameters. I installed the workflow assembly, created a case with attachments and an email. I then used the workflow design to create a new workflow with one step that runs my custom activity. The attachments copied nicely.
The first use of the custom workflow assembly is to create the email before doing the copying the attachments. I therefore created a new workflow that created an email using details from a case. I set this up as a manual workflow as this it what the end user (CRM consultant) will be doing. I ran that workflow and an email was created as expected.
I then modified the second workflow to add a second step. The second step copies the attachments from the current case to the created email. When I ran the workflow, it failed on step 1.
I modified the workflow so that the email from step 1 was not used in step 2. Instead, I used an existing email as per my very first test. This means that the two steps when executed individually work and if they ran concurrently they should work because there is no link between them. However, when I ran the workflow, it failed on step 1.
Can anyone suggest why this may be happening?
I found the answer so thought I would post it here. I had a class in use that was not marked with the [Serializable] attribute. Once the attribute was added, the problem went away.