On Wed 13 Nov 2019 at 19:29, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote:
> The name of the branch contains MNG-5668, but it contains much more. > I'd likely lead to comments like "great", without being explicit saying > which part(s). > I am aware there's all proposals touch the same code, but can be released > isolated from each other. > e.g. if the enums-value are changed to "pre-" and "post-" it should work > for the existing phases, That would be a mistake in my opinion. We don’t know what people have assumed about the post-integration-test phase. I think if we are addressing finally it needs to be in a “new” phase. Plus how do we distinguish between someone running `mvn integration-test` and `mvn post-integration-test` for sure someone running `mvn verify` should probably have finally behaviour in the event of the integration-test failing... but that would require quite a bit of hacks to the build plan whereas dynamic phases is just about decorating each phase as it is which means we could already use it quite soon (still need to test it > myself, though) > I also want to provide a counter proposal, but that takes time and for me > there are other issues more important. > > My biggest fear is that this will result in an All-Or-Nothing, and I like > to prevent that. If the try-finally part works as expected we can extract > that part and prepare for one of the next Maven releases. > > Robert > > > > > > On 12-11-2019 10:25:42, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> > wrote: > On Tue 12 Nov 2019 at 07:34, Robert Scholte wrote: > > > This is not just MNG-5668, but also contains several non-existing issues, > > that should be mentioned explicitly as they will have huge impact: > > > > - support before:/after: prefix for phase-binding > > > > - introduce priority > > - reduce phases (this one hasn't been implemented, but seems to be the > > reason behind before:/after:) > > > All detailed in the proposal on the wiki: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases > > Reducing phases would be a big change and not before 4.x at least (maybe > 5.x more realistically... at least we’d need to deprecate the phases for a > good while before removing any) > > > > > > I would like see separate branches for all of them, as they all have > their > > own discussion. > > > The whole point of a PoC is the get feedback. I don’t see utility in > separate branches as they are all touching the same code. > > Once we get feedback we can decide where we want to go from there. > > > > > > Robert > > On 11-11-2019 20:31:44, Stephen Connolly > > wrote: > > https://github.com/apache/maven/tree/mng-5668-poc is my POC > implementation > > for anyone interested in trying it out. > > > > Here's a pom that builds with the PoC > > > > > > 4.0.0 > > localdomain > > foo > > 1.0-SNAPSHOT > > > > > > > > maven-antrun-plugin > > > > > > 1 > > before:integration-test > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 > > before:integration-test[1000] > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 > > after:integration-test > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 > > integration-test > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 10:55, Robert Scholte wrote: > > > > > TLDR: We can do better than, but who is in control? lifecycle-owner, > > > plugin-owner or pom-owner? > > > > > > I think we all recognize the issues we're trying to solve, but to me > this > > > proposal is not the right solution. > > > > > > In general there are 2 issues: > > > 1. provide a mechanism that makes sure some executions are called even > > its > > > matching main phase fails. > > > 2. provide a mechanism then ensures the order of executions. > > > > > > The problem of issue 1 is described in MNG-5668, but not the final > > > solution. > > > MNG-5668 proposes to give this power to the *lifecycle-owner*, whereas > > > stage 2 proposes to give the power to the *pom-owner*. > > > Both agree on the same thing: by default these post-phases should be > > > triggered even after failure of the matching main phase. This is > actually > > > already expected behavior, so I don't expect real issues when > > implementing > > > this adjusted behavior. > > > To me after:integration-test is just an alias for > post-integration-test, > > > both should work the same way. > > > > > > Issue 2 is a more common problem: controlling the order of executions. > > > In some cases it is pretty hard or even impossible to get the preferred > > > order. The latter happens when 2 goals of the same plugin must be > > executed > > > and a goal of another plugin are competing within the same phase. > > > > > > So let's first take a look at a phase: is there a clear definition? > > > "A phase is a step in what Maven calls a 'build lifecycle'. The build > > > lifecycle is an ordered sequence of phases involved in building a > > project". > > > "Lifecycle phases are intentionally vague, defined solely as > > > validation, testing, or deployment, and they may mean different things > to > > > different projects." > > > Phases are intended to be called from the commandline, and within the > pom > > > you define you can control what should happen before or during that > > phase. > > > > > > To me changing the content of the -element is a codesmell as it > > > becomes more than just a phase, and we start programming. Why do we > need > > it? > > > In the end it is all about ensuring the order of plugin executions. > > > Stage3+4 proposes to give the power to the *pom-owner*, > > > whereas MPLUGIN-350[2] proposes to give this power to the > *plugin-owner*. > > > IIUR Gradle does not have this issue, because their plugins are aware > of > > > input and output. They ensure that if the output plugin X is the input > of > > > plugin Y, than X is executed before Y. > > > And we should do the same. And this comes with benefits: we can decide > if > > > executions within a project can be executed in parallel. And the pom > > stays > > > as clean as it is right now. > > > > > > In cases when there's a better ownership than the pom-owner, I would > > > prefer to choose that solution. I already notice how people (don't) > build > > > up their knowledge regarding poms. The lifecycle-owner and plugin-owner > > > know much better what they're doing. > > > > > > thanks, > > > Robert > > > > > > Some food for thoughts: consider a developer that wants to run up until > > > pre-integration-test, because he wants to bring his system in a certain > > > state so he can work with IDE to do some work.Can we say that If And > Only > > > If somebody called the pre-PHASE, there's no reason to end with the > > > post-PHASE? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5668 > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-350 > > > On 26-10-2019 14:20:50, Stephen Connolly > > > wrote: > > > On Sat 26 Oct 2019 at 10:50, Robert Scholte wrote: > > > > > > > To avoid confusion, let's call it stages. > > > > > > > > Stage 1: Always call post-bound executions (MNG-5665[1]) > > > > Stage 2: before and after > > > > Stage 3: priorities (MNG-3522[2]) > > > > Stage 4: transitional lifecycle > > > > > > > > > I have a prototype of stages 1-3 nearly (80%) done... just have to > polish > > > up and validate the bound executions with some tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For both all you need to start evaluating the value of phase. > > > > For now we can assume that after:clean is just another label for > > > > post-clean and will have exactly the same effect. > > > > MNG-5665 contains a proposal to change the xml, but we shouldn't do > > that > > > > (yet). Let's start with a hardcoded list of postphases (or in case a > > goal > > > > fails, see if a post-x phase exists). Stage 1 is to make it work, > > stage 2 > > > > to make it configurable. > > > > IIRC you cannot ask from inside a Mojo if is was called explicitly or > > > > because it was bound to a phase, nor can you ask for the value of > this > > > > phase. I kind of like this, plugins shouldn't care about this. > > > > However, inside Maven it will become important at which phase it is > to > > > > know if there are more executions to call OR create blocks of > > executions. > > > > Now it is just a list of executions: loop and fail fast. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5665 > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-3522 > > > > On 25-10-2019 21:33:14, Stephen Connolly > > > > wrote: > > > > Robert, > > > > > > > > I would be fine splitting out into, pardon the pun, phases: > > > > > > > > Phase 1: before and after > > > > Phase 2: priorities > > > > Phase 3: transitional lifecycle > > > > > > > > Might have a phase 1.5 of before:* and after:* to catch the start of > a > > > > lifecycle and the end of a lifecycle... > > > > > > > > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:30, Stephen Connolly > > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com [mailto: > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > > > ]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Robert, Michael, Tibor, let’s continue here (though I asked Infra and > > > it’s > > > > fine that anyone in the community can join our Slack) > > > > > > > > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:01, Stephen Connolly > > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com [mailto: > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > > > ]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases [ > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases] > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Sent from my phone > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Sent from my phone > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Sent from my phone > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from my phone > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone > -- Sent from my phone
