Was this before or after my commit an hour or two back?
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog:      http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au


"Peter Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14/02/2003 06:10:28 PM:

> I can also verify that with maven HEAD today builds does not fail when
> dependencies can't be found.
> 
> I use Win 2000 JDK 1.4.1_01 also.
> 
> -Peter
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Colin Sampaleanu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Turbine Maven Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Maven Beta-8 Release
> 
> 
> > Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 11:02, Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 09:40, Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>This is quite possible, since the current code doesn't break the 
build
> > >>>>when a dependency is not found...
> > >>>>
> > >>>Ok, I just tried what you described with HEAD and got:
> > >>>
> > >>>-----
> > >>>__  __
> > >>>|  \/  |__ Jakarta _ ___
> > >>>| |\/| / _` \ V / -_) ' \  ~ intelligent projects ~
> > >>>|_|  |_\__,_|\_/\___|_||_|   v. 1.0-beta-9
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Attempting to download crapola-1.0.jar.
> > >>>WARNING: Failed to download crapola-1.0.jar.
> > >>>The build cannot continue because of the following unsatisfied
> > >>>dependency:
> > >>>
> > >>>crapola-1.0.jar
> > >>>
> > >>>Total time:  4 seconds
> > >>>
> > >>>-----
> > >>>
> > >>>Where do we have the mismatch?
> > >>>
> > >>Maybe it's an OS thing. I am running Win2k, and I think you are 
running
> > >>Linux?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Yes, I have Linux. Do you have multiple repositories set? Maybe 
that's
> > >it.
> > >
> > >>The other thing I just verified is that while dIon had said he
> > >>was going to change the ignoreErrors flag to false (in
> > >>DependencyVerifier), it's still true. So actually, I understand why 
it's
> > >>not failing for me, I don't understand why it's failing for you.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >We should probably change the logic to just let the downloads occur 
and
> > >then check again afterward which artifacts are present. That way it 
wil
> > >always depend on what is actually present in the local repository.
> > >
> > >>I think
> > >>in my case what is happening is that an expected error happens (in
> > >>HttpUtils), and because of the ignoreErrors that doesn't get 
returned as
> > >>an error. In your case, an exception of another sort gets thrown, 
which
> > >>doesn't get filtered by the ignoreErrors flag but comes through to
> > >>DependencyVerifier, so the artifact is not treated as downloaded.
> > >>
> > >>Will try to figure this out in more depth.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Ok, thanks. Things are in better shape now so patches can be applied 
a
> > >little faster now.
> > >
> > Here is some more info, after stepping through the code again in a
> > debugger. In my case, everything is behaving exactly as expected, 
given
> > the code that is there. I don't understand why it's failing for you.
> >
> > getRemoteArtifact() calls HttpUtils.getFile() with ignoreErrors set to
> > true. getfile does a connection, gets past the point where it checks 
the
> > headers for HTTP_NOT_MODIFIED and HTTP_UNAUTHORIZED, and arrives at 
the
> > loop where it tries 3 times to get the inputstream. At that point, it
> > catches any IOException (in this case, FileNotFoundException) and 
always
> > ignores it. Immediately afterwards, because ignoreErrors is true, it
> > doesn't treat the fact that the inputstream is null as an error, but
> > simply returns.
> >
> > So everything works exactly as it should, given the code in CVS. The
> > real question is why the build is failing for you. I think in your 
case
> > possibly something else other than an IOException is being thrown, so 
is
> > not being caught in getFile(), or maybe an exception is thrown before
> > that point even...
> >
> > What would _probably_ resolve things is to set ignoreErrors to false, 
as
> > dIon had wanted to, but I would still figure out why stuff is working
> > for you with the present code, since it just doesn't make sense.
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
> 

> ForwardSourceID:NT000B15E6 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to