Hello Looks like I was anticipating such problem by adding "TOCHECK: last rule wins - no break!!!" :) The diff looks good - if all existing tests pass, I think we can merge it. Could you please create KARAF jira issue for this?
best regards Grzegorz Grzybek wt., 5 mar 2019 o 18:27 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a): > Thanks for sharing Daniel. > > I gonna take a look. > > Regards > JB > > On 05/03/2019 18:19, Daniel Estermann wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > we have the following override.properties: > > > > > mvn:com.seeburger.portal/portal-backend-sdk/2.69.0-SNAPSHOT;range="[0,99999)" > > > mvn:com.seeburger.portal/portal-backend-sdk/2.69.0-SNAPSHOT/jar/karaf-migration;range="[0,99999)" > > > > which are supposed to do the following replacements: > > > > portal-backend-sdk/2.68.3 -> portal-backend-sdk/2.69.0-SNAPSHOT > > > > and > > > > portal-backend-sdk/2.68.3/jar/karaf-migration -> > > portal-backend-sdk/2.69.0-SNAPSHOT/jar/karaf-migration > > > > But the method > > > org.apache.karaf.features.internal.service.FeaturesProcessorImpl.staticOverrideBundle(Bundle) > > < > https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/internal/service/FeaturesProcessorImpl.java#L225 > > > > replaces portal-backend-sdk/2.68.3/jar/karaf-migration with > > mvn:com.seeburger.portal/portal-backend-sdk/2.69.0-SNAPSHOT, i.e. a > > classified artifact gets replaced with an artifact without classifier. > This > > happens because the implementation of > > org.apache.karaf.features.LocationPattern > > < > https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/features/core/src/main/java/org/apache/karaf/features/LocationPattern.java#L151 > > > > allows matching of classified URI by a non-classified pattern. The > > LocationPatternTest indicates that this is an intentional behavior: see > > line 112 > > < > https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/features/core/src/test/java/org/apache/karaf/features/internal/service/LocationPatternTest.java#L112 > >, > > 115 > > < > https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/features/core/src/test/java/org/apache/karaf/features/internal/service/LocationPatternTest.java#L115 > >, > > 116 > > < > https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/features/core/src/test/java/org/apache/karaf/features/internal/service/LocationPatternTest.java#L116 > > > > . > > > > I can understand why LocationPattern is implemented like that. But then > my > > guess is that FeaturesProcessorImpl is incorrect. By the way an > interesting > > comment there: *TOCHECK: last rule wins - no break!!!* Last rule doesn't > > work for us so looks like now the time has come to check it. I think what > > is crucial there, is that we shouldn't rely on the order of overrides, > but > > rather on their quality. I.e. not the first/last match is appropriate, > but > > the best one. I propose to collect candidates to match and then determine > > the best one using simply the length as criterion. > > > > My proposal is already implemented in our fork and tested on my local > > system (for now). Here you can see it: > > > https://github.com/seeburger-ag/karaf/commit/940911e8a8ccdb97d5cebf976e41747f1e7716a4 > > > > I would appreciate to receive any feedback on this. > > > > Regards, > > Daniel > > >
