[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MWAR-65?page=all ]
Brian Fox closed MWAR-65.
-------------------------
Resolution: Won't Fix
Missed a crucial piece of code. It does ignore existing files.
> Overlaying checks timestamps
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: MWAR-65
> URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MWAR-65
> Project: Maven 2.x War Plugin
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.0.1
> Reporter: Brian Fox
> Priority: Critical
>
> So I'm looking into the latest war plugin because upgrading from a very old
> version (beta2) broke my build. We are currently doing this:
>
> I create wars that are intended to be repackaged by excluding all jars and
> some various other files I don't want included (we create 2 wars, one that
> can be run standalone for unit testing and one that is deployed). In the war
> that does the repackaging, I use the dependency plugin to unpack the first
> war into the target folder where the war plugin does the inplace processing.
> This broke because between beta2 and 2.0.1, code was added to check the file
> timestamp. If the timestamp in the project is older than the one being
> unpacked, then it isn't used, even though we intend it to.
> The overlaying performed by the war plugin when there are dependent wars
> suffers from the same problem. The comment in the source says that no files
> will be overwritten. In my case, this would work because I could layer them
> correctly. The problem is that the code calls the same copyifmodified method
> which checks the timestamps.
> This is what the source code says it will do:
> /**
> * Recursively copies contents of <tt>srcDir</tt> into <tt>targetDir</tt>.
> * This will not overwrite any existing files.
> *
> * @param srcDir Directory containing unpacked dependent war contents
> * @param targetDir Directory to overlay srcDir into
> private void copyDependentWarContents( File srcDir, File targetDir )
> throws MojoExecutionException
> But this is what it does:
> copyFileIfModified( new File( srcDir, files[j] ), targetFile );
> So the question: is this a bug, in otherwords should it always not overwrite
> or should I add a flag to tell it to not overwrite? If a flag, which should
> be the default?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
