I made it a JUnit assume so it would ignore the test when the class isn't found. I think I made a Hamcrest matcher for it.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 23:04, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > I tried porting the changes you made back to release-2.x and it compiles, but > it still fails in the unit tests as the reflection fails since the class > isn’t present. How did you solve that? > > Ralph > > > On Jun 26, 2019, at 1:12 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Nevermind. I see you used reflection. I am not sure why I hadn’t thought of > > doing that. > > > > Ralph > > > >> On Jun 26, 2019, at 1:08 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> How did you get around the compile problem in master? > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Jun 26, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I fixed that sun.reflect compile error in master, but didn't backport > >>> it to release-2.x. There are still some other compile errors besides > >>> if you compile with Java 11. > >>> > >>> As for why you get different results when running rat with or without > >>> the rat profile activated, it's because our rat config is different in > >>> the rat profile compared to the default one. I think our config is > >>> wrong there, and I typically rediscover that any time I do a release. > >>> > >>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 13:15, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I have wondered that for a long time. In fact, if you run “mvn compile” > >>>> followed by “mvn test” you will see > >>>> > >>>> [INFO] Changes detected - recompiling the module! > >>>> > >>>> So obviously something is there that tries to detect changes. It just > >>>> doesn’t seem to work. > >>>> > >>>> Ralph > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 26, 2019, at 9:32 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM Ralph Goers > >>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Those are mine as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Unfortunately, if you use the toolchains plugin to specify the compiler > >>>>>> version then all the tests are also going to run with that Java > >>>>>> version. > >>>>>> Since there is no getting around having sun.reflect.Reflection be used > >>>>>> prior to Java 9 there is no way to use Java 11 to compile and test > >>>>>> Log4j > >>>>>> API. That only leaves you with the option of creating a phony jar. But > >>>>>> that will have problems too as it will probably be used by the unit > >>>>>> tests. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The only other option is to create a separate module for the unit > >>>>>> tests. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> But why does Maven recompile when nothing has changed? That's the real > >>>>> problem, I ran a first build on Java 8, then all I want to do is run the > >>>>> tests on Java 11. > >>>>> > >>>>> Gary > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ralph > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2019, at 9:00 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:02 AM Ralph Goers > >>>>>>> <[email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don’t run the build with Java 11, although I do have projects that > >>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>> it that are on Java 11. It seems that log4j-api is failing when > >>>>>> compiling > >>>>>>>> with Java 11 because sun.reflect.Reflection was removed in Java 9. I > >>>>>> guess > >>>>>>>> we need to modify the toolchains configuration to tell the main > >>>>>>>> modules > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> use only Java 8 to compile. The only other option would be to > >>>>>>>> create a > >>>>>> jar > >>>>>>>> that has that class in it and specify it as a provided dependency. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My goal is to be able to answer the question: "Do all the tests pass > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>> Java 11?" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am OK for this release with not being able to _build_ on Java 11 > >>>>>>> but I > >>>>>>> certainly should be able to run all tests with a plain old 'mvn test'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> FWIW, at work, our platform requirements are Java 8 and 11. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Gary > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
