I think that is a bug that is in scope for 3.5.1 or 3.6.0 On 31 May 2017 at 22:30, Laird Nelson <ljnel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I've been working with Maven since at least 2004 and I think I *still* > don't > get transitive dependencies.) > > I have a pom.xml file of type pom that has some compile-scoped dependencies > in it. (P1 -> A(compile), B(compile)) > > I have another project that depends on this pom in provided scope (I'm just > playing around for now). The intention is that I will "get" all the > transitive compile-scoped dependencies of the pom artifact I'm depending > on, but in provided scope. (P2 -> P1(provided); result is effectively: P2 > -> P1(provided) -> A(provided), B(provided)) > > If that's all I have, then indeed, that's the result I observe: when I run > the maven-dependency-plugin's dependency-tree goal, I see these transitive > dependencies and they are all marked as being in provided scope, not > compile. I see, in other words, the tree representation of P2 -> > P1(provided) -> A(provided), B(provided). So far so good. > > Now I pull in another (jar) dependency in runtime scope. It has some > transitive dependencies in compile scope. Fine. They don't include any of > the dependencies mentioned in my second paragraph. (P2 -> (P1(provided) -> > A(provided),B(provided)), (P3(runtime) -> C(compile),D(compile))) Note > that this pseudo-language is what I *expect* to see. > > When I run dependency:tree on this hairy mess, it does *not* show the > representation of my pseudo-language above. Instead, it shows the > transitive dependencies from my third paragraph as direct "children" of the > pom-type artifact I'm pulling in in provided scope (P1), but they all have > a scope of runtime. So, for just this part of the tree: P2 -> P1(provided) > -> A(runtime(!)), B(runtime(!)) > > What the…? In other words, somebody in the tree is "promoting" my A and B > dependencies to runtime scope. But I can't tell from the tree output who > it is, because A and B (that are now apparently runtime-scoped > dependencies) are still showing as children of my pom artifact (P1, > mentioned in my second paragraph). > > Is this all according to plan? I'm using version 3.0.0 of the > maven-dependency-plugin and version 3.5.0 of Maven itself. > > Best, > Laird >
