Fixes # ### Testing done ### Screenshots (UI changes only) #### Before #### After ### Proposed changelog entries - human-readable text ### Proposed changelog category /label ### Proposed upgrade guidelines N/A ### Submitter checklist - [ ] The issue, if it exists, is well-described. - [ ] The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see [examples](https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/blob/master/content/_data/changelogs/weekly.yml)). Fill in the **Proposed upgrade guidelines** section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade. - [ ] There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests. - [ ] New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with `@Restricted` or have `@since TODO` Javadocs, as appropriate. - [ ] New deprecations are annotated with `@Deprecated(since = "TODO")` or `@Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO")`, if applicable. - [ ] UI changes do not introduce regressions when enforcing the current default rules of [Content Security Policy Plugin](https://plugins.jenkins.io/csp/). In particular, new or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call `eval` to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see [documentation](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/developer/security/csp/)). - [ ] For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials. - [ ] For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer. ### Desired reviewers @mention Before the changes are marked as `ready-for-merge`: ### Maintainer checklist - [ ] There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change. - [ ] Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change. - [ ] Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or **Proposed changelog entries** are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood. - [ ] Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically. - [ ] If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the `upgrade-guide-needed` label is set and there is a **Proposed upgrade guidelines** section in the pull request title (see [example](https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4387)). - [ ] If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, be a _Bug_ or _Improvement_, and either the issue or pull request must be labeled as `lts-candidate` to be considered.