Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Discrepancy between schema and dynamic documentation in JCASC plugn #2241

Open
piglowskilukasz opened this issue Mar 24, 2023 · 4 comments
Open
Labels

Comments

@piglowskilukasz
Copy link

Jenkins and plugins versions report

Environment
Jenkins: 2.387.1
OS: Linux - 4.14.301-224.520.amzn2.x86_64
---
configuration-as-code:1569.vb_72405b_80249
configuration-as-code-secret-ssm:1.0.1

What Operating System are you using (both controller, and any agents involved in the problem)?

no applicable, using controller

Reproduction steps

  1. Access jenkins.yaml and search for elements:
    agentProtocols:
  • "JNLP4-connect"
  • "Ping"

image

  1. Access schema https://{JENKINS_URL}/configuration-as-code/schema and search for same element: agentProtocols and result is as below:
    "agentProtocols": {"type": "string"},
    "local": {
    "additionalProperties": false,
    "type": "object",
    image

  2. Access jcasc documentation https://{JENKINS_URL}/configuration-as-code/reference and search for same element: agentProtocols and result is as below:

agentProtocols: list ofString

image

Expected Results

In jenkins. yaml file it is defined as array type and documentation is generating this type correctly as below.
The problem is with the schema output as same element is defined as string type and that is incorrect as it should be array.

Actual Results

It is a discrepancy for some type elements between dynamic documentation and schema which are provided by JCASC plugin.

Anything else?

No response

@piglowskilukasz
Copy link
Author

Is anybody else experiencing similar issue? please let me know if you require more inputs to this thread

@timja
Copy link
Member

timja commented Mar 30, 2023

The schema isn't accurate unfortunately, some stuff works but the work was never really finished

@tim-goto
Copy link

Experiencing similar issues. Are there any efforts to finish the schema? How can I help?

@timja
Copy link
Member

timja commented Oct 25, 2023

No efforts going on currently, any tested pull requests that improve the schema generation will be reviewed and merged.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants