I have a jenkins server that builds files and uploads them to sourceforge. What i would like to do is write the github change log to a txt tile and include it with the upload. This way the end user can see general info on whats changed since the last build. I've found no information on how to do this and am general a noob when it comes to jenkins. I assume i'm going to need some kind of script to handle this. What i'm looking for is an example, or information how to handle it.
Looking to output the change log in this picture to a txt file. That is the pixture is a reference of the jenkins build panel. http://puu.sh/4kh7z.png
Related
I'm trying to add an xlsm file to one of the markdown files in my repository, and that repository is published as wiki. What I want to do is that I want to have the xlsm file to be downloadable from the markdown file when click on it. This works perfectly fine for file formats such as docx, pdf and xlsx, but when I add an xlsm file as a link, it gets blocked. The link is highlighted as red and when I click on it, it goes to a not-found page instead of downloading it.
It looks like this is implemented by Microsoft as a sort of a security precaution for macro-enabled excel files, but is there a way to bypass this?
A rather poor workaround is to name your files with another, fictitious file extension, e.g. MyFile.xlsm.xlsx or MyFile.xlsm.txt. Then you can provide instructions to your users to download/save them with the fictitious extension removed, e.g. MyFile.xlsm. From a security perspective, this is not an advisable practice.
I cannot find official documentation stating which files are or are not supported. However, it's reasonable to assume you are correct. The .xlsm files are likely blocked for security reasons.
Tech writers are going to edit text in JSON files via github in our project. Since they never used a IDE (and don't need to) we think about using the web GUI of github. We have a CI, but it would be very cool, if we could run a check before the commit gets done.
Example:
Step 1: tech writer opens in github the JSON file
Step 2: tech writer updates a string
Step 3: tech writer presses button to save the changes
Step 4: Some simple script executes and checks the content of this particular file.
Step 5a: Everything fine? Then commit - END
Step 5b: There is a syntax error. Show the error message to the tech writer.
Is this possible?
GitHub doesn't provide this functionality, and it's not likely anyone else does, either.
In order to do this, GitHub would have to have a non-bare repository on their servers and let you run an arbitrary script. Bare repositories are packed and can be much smaller than a full working tree, and even if GitHub had a working tree, it wouldn't necessarily be on your branch, which would delay the process. Running an arbitrary script is a security risk, and it's not guaranteed that your script would run fast enough for the process to complete in a reasonable amount of time. Your script would also need to run via the API, which has hard limits on response times.
There is GitHub Actions, which lets you do this, but that doesn't provide real-time checking like you want. It is appropriately sandboxed and single use so you can arbitrary scripts.
I should note that Git also doesn't provide real-time checking here: the best it can do is pre-commit hooks to prevent you from committing bad changes (if you've chosen to enable them).
So I am using github pull requests for my code review needs and my only issue is that I cannot tell whether a person is using tabs or spaces for indentation. We have a standard here on this and you can fail code review for using the wrong one. Is there a way to tell which they are using with github or will I have to manually open up the file in my editor to tell the difference?
Is there a way to tell which they are using with github or will I have to manually open up the file in my editor to tell the difference?
Ideally – neither!
Whenever things can be checked in an automated way, let the computer do the work for you. Checking proper usage of whitespace among many other static rules can be checked with a variety of tools, often called linters. This highly depends on what language your project uses. Of course you can also write your own scrips if you so choose.
What you can do on Github is connect your repository to a CI tool such as Travis. This lets you automatically build all pull requests and check things such as whitespace rules. It also lets you run test suites, code formatting, … – anything you can automate, you can (and should!) run from there to minimize manual work.
I'm using Perforce version control system (http://www.perforce.com/) and would like to format source code files (mainly XML) when developers submit their files to Perforce. I know that Git and SVN allow script hooks that provide for that.
Is there a way to change files that are being submitted to Perforce using some kind of a hook?
How can I do that on Perforce?
Thanks!
When I've done these sorts of policy-enforcement tools in the past, I've done it post-commit.
That is, after the submit completes, my tool retrieves the newly-submitted files, re-formats them according to the policy that I'm enforcing, and submits the re-formatted files as a follow-on change.
I do this by writing a tool that monitors changes similarly to the way the change review daemon monitors changes, so that the tool notices new submits and reviews the new files to see if they comply to the organization policy.
I generally have the tool perform a "revert -a" prior to the submit, so that if the files were formatted according to policy by the original developer, no second submission occurs.
I actually think this is a better approach than trying to do it during the submit:
The change that is submitted is exactly as the user provided it, with the identical content as provided by the user
The modifications that are due to the tool are clearly visible in a separate submission, which makes it very easy to recognize when the tool has gone astray and damaged the file during its re-formatting (such tool bugs do occur).
The net effect, overall, is the desired one: the files at the head of the branch are formatted according to company policy.
A Perforce trigger is what you need.
The problem i am trying to solve is where developers change files without going through the proper channels. The developer should be able to make the change himself but only after his work was approved, since the code is used in a lot of projects
I found this link that also describes my problem:
http://www.p4ideax.com/ideas/694/temporary-permissions
One way to do it is to have only the architects have access to the files and then granting the developer temporary access. Maybe the permission can be linked to a specific job in perforce. The only way i can see how to do that is by adding the files that the person should be able to change to a new field in the jobs template ( done by architect ). Then have a server app dynamically call p4 protect and manage the permissions table. Then when the job is closed the permission is revoked. The server app could be the bugtracker software.
Is there an easier way or even 3rd party software out there that can solve the problem?
I know that another way to solve it is to put these sensitive files in a branch and then only allow the architects permission to merge into this branch. This solution feels a bit heavy handed.
Any suggestions would be helpfull
This is something that could certainly be done with a pre-submit hook. There are examples at Perforce Depot.
My thinking would be to reject submits for files in that section of the depot that didn't have a job that was on the "approved list". You could create the approved list in a number of ways, although a simple one (if you're using Perforce globally) would be to put the job list into a file under repository control and then have that list be available only to the architects.
The pre-submit trigger would then basically need to:
- If the files being submitted aren't in the protected tree, let the submit happen
- Grab an r/o copy of the file from the depot
- Grab the job list from the submit
- grep the job against the list
- If the job is in the list, let the submit happen
- Reject the submit with an appropriate error message