Build Status Page Order
6 views
Skip to first unread message
potter
Jan 3, 2011, 11:38:04 AM1/3/11
to Bitten
I recently upgraded my installation from 0.6b2 to 0.6b3. One thing
that I noticed is that the order of the Build Configurations on the
Build Status page has changed. It use to be in the order of the
configurations' Name; now it is is in the order of the configurations'
Label.
Questions:
* Was this change on purpose or did it just happen associated with
some other change? (I assume this was on purpose.)
* Is there a ticket on this?
I understand that the new order may be the desired order. Therefore I
am probably just going deal with it. However my understanding of the
situation may be off. Alternately this discussion may point to a new
feature request.
I was making use of this old "feature" to control the order of
presentation. My Build Status pages was in the order:
* Trunk (name: Trunk)
* Branches - this was a configuration with no platforms and thus
acted as a label for those that followed (name: b)
* one or more configurations for the currently active branches.
(name: bXXX, e.g. bVersion54)
* Branch Any - a configuration that will build any check-in on any
branch. (name: branchAny)
* Tag Any - a configuration that will build any check-in for any tag.
(name: tagAny)
This is thus ruffly in the order of activity. The move active
configurations are closer to the top. However, with the new ordering
I get:
* Branch Any
* Branches - Since removed since it is now in the wrong location.
* Tag Any
* Trunk
With the other branches scattered around depending on their label.
that I noticed is that the order of the Build Configurations on the
Build Status page has changed. It use to be in the order of the
configurations' Name; now it is is in the order of the configurations'
Label.
Questions:
* Was this change on purpose or did it just happen associated with
some other change? (I assume this was on purpose.)
* Is there a ticket on this?
I understand that the new order may be the desired order. Therefore I
am probably just going deal with it. However my understanding of the
situation may be off. Alternately this discussion may point to a new
feature request.
I was making use of this old "feature" to control the order of
presentation. My Build Status pages was in the order:
* Trunk (name: Trunk)
* Branches - this was a configuration with no platforms and thus
acted as a label for those that followed (name: b)
* one or more configurations for the currently active branches.
(name: bXXX, e.g. bVersion54)
* Branch Any - a configuration that will build any check-in on any
branch. (name: branchAny)
* Tag Any - a configuration that will build any check-in for any tag.
(name: tagAny)
This is thus ruffly in the order of activity. The move active
configurations are closer to the top. However, with the new ordering
I get:
* Branch Any
* Branches - Since removed since it is now in the wrong location.
* Tag Any
* Trunk
With the other branches scattered around depending on their label.
Walter W. Bell
Jan 3, 2011, 11:55:02 AM1/3/11
to bit...@googlegroups.com
I'm the cuplrit there (changeset [824] added the sorted behavior). Prior to that changeset, it was just the order that the records came out of the database. I don't have a strong opinion here, other than it should be sorted in some order; the distinction between name and label has always thrown me for a loop (and as you point out, as you have more and more configurations it makes things more difficult.
Long term, I'd certainly like grouping-- we easily had a dozen configurations on one installation and wanted to do a similar "main branches" and "special purpose branches" grouping. Sounds like grouping would solve your needs, something where you could bucket configurations in groups and have them be arranged on the build page.
Maybe a concrete first proposal is:
* Add a group name to each configuration (defaults to none)
* Update the configurations page to show configurations by group (in sorted group order), with a separator between them, with the configurations in a group sorted by label.
We can add something more configurable later (ie, ordering of groups), but this seems like a simple first step. Do you think this would solve your situation?
-w
Long term, I'd certainly like grouping-- we easily had a dozen configurations on one installation and wanted to do a similar "main branches" and "special purpose branches" grouping. Sounds like grouping would solve your needs, something where you could bucket configurations in groups and have them be arranged on the build page.
Maybe a concrete first proposal is:
* Add a group name to each configuration (defaults to none)
* Update the configurations page to show configurations by group (in sorted group order), with a separator between them, with the configurations in a group sorted by label.
We can add something more configurable later (ie, ordering of groups), but this seems like a simple first step. Do you think this would solve your situation?
-w
potter
Jan 3, 2011, 2:38:36 PM1/3/11
to Bitten
> I'm the cuplrit there (changeset [824] added the sorted behavior). Prior
> to that changeset, it was just the order that the records came out of
> the database.
Ah, now I can understand the change. Thanks.
> to that changeset, it was just the order that the records came out of
> the database.
> Do you think this would solve
> your situation?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages