excludedUsers - SCM - Git

[Logan Hendricks]

Hello Everyone,

I'm running into a current situation where I am attempting to exclude a specific user from Git Polling, and discovering that while the class excludedUsers exists on the Subversion options, the class is yet to exist for Git.

I would assume the final syntax would be as 

scm {
   git {
      remote {
         url("${GlobalConfig.git_base_url}${name}")
      }
      branch("*/${BRANCH}")
      extensions {
         localBranch("${BRANCH}")
         excludedUsers("userToExclude")
      }
   }
}

I would almost consider this a new feature or a bug in the program.  What would be the best way to make a request?

Thanks,

Logan

[Victor Martinez]

Hi Logan,

You don't need to do anything but following one of the below approaches to accomplish your requirement:

- Using the configure closure: https://jenkinsci.github.io/job-dsl-plugin/#path/javaposse.jobdsl.dsl.helpers.ScmContext.git-configure

-- https://github.com/jenkinsci/job-dsl-plugin/wiki/The-Configure-Block

- Using the https://github.com/jenkinsci/job-dsl-plugin/wiki/Automatically-Generated-DSL 

job('example-1') {
    scm {
        git {
            remote {
                name('remoteB')
                url('git@server:account/repo1.git')
            }
            extensions {
                userExclusion {
                      // If set, and Jenkins is set to poll for changes, Jenkins will ignore any revisions committed by users in this list when determining if a build needs to be triggered.
                      excludedUsers('userToExclude')

               }
            }
        } 
    }
}

Further details: your_jenkins_url/plugin/job-dsl/api-viewer/index.html#path/javaposse.jobdsl.dsl.helpers.ScmContext.git-extensions-userExclusion

Cheers

[Logan Hendricks]

Victor,

My first response was to also turn to the configure closure.  I was unable to configure that particular closure to work properly within my current project.  But with the docs you submitted, I will review my efforts and see if I can prove more fruitful on that.  

However, what looks more promising is the posted snippet you gave on that extension of userExclusion. that seems exactly what I wanted it to accomplish.  I will be glad to review that some more as well.

Logan