That seems better thanks. We really need some unit tests for this dependency reduced pom logic. It looks like ShadeMojoTest doesn't actually test ShadeMojo but duplicates DefaultShaderTest.
Do you want me to retrospectively raise an issue for this? Cheers, Mark 2008/7/18 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Can you try again with the code on trunk? Just committed some more > changes. > > Dan > > > > On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Mark Hobson wrote: > >> 2008/7/16 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> I just verified with CXF that if I use maven 2.0.7, the reduced pom has >>> many >>> extra excludes. I've gone ahead and added some code to the ShadeMojo to >>> double check if it's an irrelevant exclude and not bother. This isn't >>> needed with 2.0.9, but it is with 2.0.7. Can you checkout the code from >>> svn and retry with that? >> >> I've just tried with the shade trunk and Maven 2.0.9 and I still get >> too many excludes. My project dependency tree is essentially: >> >> foo:project:jar:1.0 >> +- foo:dependency:jar:1.0:compile >> | +- foo:a:jar:1.0:compile >> | \- foo:b:jar:1.0:compile >> \- foo:shademe:jar:1.0:compile >> >> I'm shading foo:shademe and get the following dependency-reduced-pom.xml: >> >> <project> >> <groupId>foo</groupId> >> <artifactId>project</artifactId> >> <version>1.0</version> >> ... >> <dependencies> >> <dependency> >> <groupId>foo</groupId> >> <artifactId>dependency</artifactId> >> <version>1.0</version> >> <scope>compile</scope> >> <exclusions> >> <exclusion> >> <groupId>foo</groupId> >> <artifactId>a</artifactId> >> </exclusion> >> <exclusion> >> <groupId>foo</groupId> >> <artifactId>b</artifactId> >> </exclusion> >> </exclusions> >> </dependency> >> </dependencies> >> </project> >> >> I don't quite get what updateExcludesInDeps is attempting to do. >> Surely the dependency reduced pom should just be the original with: >> >> 1) any direct dependencies on the shaded artifacts removed >> 2) any transitive dependencies on the shaded artifacts excluded from >> their direct dependency >> >> Unshaded artifacts, like foo:a and foo:b in the example above, >> shouldn't even be considered should they? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > --- > Daniel Kulp > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
