Ok I figured out dynamic lookup from plexus: $ mvn -version Apache Maven 3.5.4 (1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe; 2018-06-17T19:33:14+01:00) Maven home: /usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec Java version: 1.8.0_152, vendor: Oracle Corporation, runtime: /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_152.jdk/Contents/Home/jre Default locale: en_IE, platform encoding: UTF-8 OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.14.6", arch: "x86_64", family: "mac" $ mvn validate [ERROR] The project uses experimental features that require exactly Maven 3.7.0-SNAPSHOT -> [Help 1] [ERROR] [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e switch. [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging. [ERROR] [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please read the following articles: [ERROR] [Help 1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MavenExecutionException
Much nicer! On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 16:12, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have advanced the PoC a bit more by adding an experiments mechanism. > > To use the dynamic phases PoC you now need to: > > 1. Build and install Maven on the branch > 2. Add the experiments extension in .mvn/extensions.xml, e.g. > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <extensions xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/EXTENSIONS/1.0.0"; xmlns:xsi=" > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; > xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/EXTENSIONS/1.0.0 > http://maven.apache.org/xsd/core-extensions-1.0.0.xsd";> > > <extension> > <groupId>org.apache.maven</groupId> > <artifactId>maven-experiments</artifactId> > <version>3.7.0-SNAPSHOT</version> > </extension> > > </extensions> > > 3. Update your pom to use the new dynamic phases. > > The reason for the experiments extension is to guard against assuming the > phases will work and prevent "normal" versions of Maven from producing a > bad build. > > Here's a build with the extension enabled: > > [INFO] Enabling experimental features of Maven 3.7.0-SNAPSHOT > [INFO] Experimental features enabled: > [INFO] * dynamic-phases > [INFO] Scanning for projects... > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [INFO] Reactor Build Order: > [INFO] > [INFO] foo > [jar] > [INFO] bar > [jar] > [INFO] test > [pom] > [INFO] > [INFO] --------------------------< localdomain:foo > >--------------------------- > [INFO] Building foo 1.0-SNAPSHOT > [1/3] > [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar > ]--------------------------------- > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:resources (default-resources) @ foo > --- > [WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered > resources, i.e. build is platform dependent! > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory > /Users/stephenc/tmp/test/foo/src/main/resources > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:compile (default-compile) @ foo --- > [INFO] No sources to compile > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:testResources > (default-testResources) @ foo --- > [WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered > resources, i.e. build is platform dependent! > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory > /Users/stephenc/tmp/test/foo/src/test/resources > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:testCompile (default-testCompile) @ > foo --- > [INFO] No sources to compile > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-surefire-plugin:2.12.4:test (default-test) @ foo --- > [INFO] No tests to run. > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-jar-plugin:2.4:jar (default-jar) @ foo --- > [WARNING] JAR will be empty - no content was marked for inclusion! > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (2) @ foo --- > [INFO] Executing tasks > [echo] beat you > [INFO] Executed tasks > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (1) @ foo --- > [INFO] Executing tasks > [echo] hi > [INFO] Executed tasks > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (4) @ foo --- > [INFO] Executing tasks > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (3) @ foo --- > [INFO] Executing tasks > [echo] bye > [INFO] Executed tasks > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [INFO] Reactor Summary for test 1.0-SNAPSHOT: > [INFO] > [INFO] foo ................................................ FAILURE [ > 2.745 s] > [INFO] bar ................................................ SKIPPED > [INFO] test ............................................... SKIPPED > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [INFO] BUILD FAILURE > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [INFO] Total time: 2.813 s > [INFO] Finished at: 2019-11-22T15:43:59Z > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Here's the same project with the extensions disabled > > [INFO] Scanning for projects... > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [INFO] Reactor Build Order: > [INFO] > [INFO] foo > [jar] > [INFO] bar > [jar] > [INFO] test > [pom] > [INFO] > [INFO] --------------------------< localdomain:foo > >--------------------------- > [INFO] Building foo 1.0-SNAPSHOT > [1/3] > [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar > ]--------------------------------- > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:resources (default-resources) @ foo > --- > [WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered > resources, i.e. build is platform dependent! > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory > /Users/stephenc/tmp/test/foo/src/main/resources > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:compile (default-compile) @ foo --- > [INFO] No sources to compile > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:testResources > (default-testResources) @ foo --- > [WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered > resources, i.e. build is platform dependent! > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory > /Users/stephenc/tmp/test/foo/src/test/resources > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:testCompile (default-testCompile) @ > foo --- > [INFO] No sources to compile > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-surefire-plugin:2.12.4:test (default-test) @ foo --- > [INFO] No tests to run. > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-jar-plugin:2.4:jar (default-jar) @ foo --- > [WARNING] JAR will be empty - no content was marked for inclusion! > [INFO] > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (4) @ foo --- > [INFO] Executing tasks > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [INFO] Reactor Summary for test 1.0-SNAPSHOT: > [INFO] > [INFO] foo ................................................ FAILURE [ > 0.745 s] > [INFO] bar ................................................ SKIPPED > [INFO] test ............................................... SKIPPED > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [INFO] BUILD FAILURE > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [INFO] Total time: 1.054 s > [INFO] Finished at: 2019-11-22T15:43:38Z > [INFO] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Notice how the dynamic phases are completely ignored if the experiment is > not activated > > And here's the foo pom.xml to show what the executions are > > <project> > <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> > <groupId>localdomain</groupId> > <artifactId>foo</artifactId> > <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version> > <build> > <plugins> > <plugin> > <artifactId>maven-antrun-plugin</artifactId> > <executions> > <execution> > <id>1</id> > <phase>before:integration-test</phase> > <goals> > <goal>run</goal> > </goals> > <configuration> > <tasks> > <echo message="hi"/> > </tasks> > </configuration> > </execution> > <execution> > <id>2</id> > <phase>before:integration-test[1000]</phase> > <goals> > <goal>run</goal> > </goals> > <configuration> > <tasks> > <sleep seconds="2"/> > <echo message="beat you"/> > </tasks> > </configuration> > </execution> > <execution> > <id>3</id> > <phase>after:integration-test</phase> > <goals> > <goal>run</goal> > </goals> > <configuration> > <tasks> > <echo message="bye"/> > </tasks> > </configuration> > </execution> > <execution> > <id>4</id> > <phase>integration-test</phase> > <goals> > <goal>run</goal> > </goals> > <configuration> > <tasks> > <fail/> > </tasks> > </configuration> > </execution> > </executions> > </plugin> > </plugins> > </build> > </project> > > Finally this is what you get if you have the experiment extension added > but try to build with an older version of Maven: > > [WARNING] Error injecting: > org.apache.maven.feature.check.MavenExperimentEnabler > java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: > org/apache/maven/feature/api/MavenFeatureContext > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0 (Native Method) > at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors (Class.java:2671) > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors (Class.java:2020) > at com.google.inject.spi.InjectionPoint.forConstructorOf > (InjectionPoint.java:245) > at com.google.inject.internal.ConstructorBindingImpl.create > (ConstructorBindingImpl.java:115) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createUninitializedBinding > (InjectorImpl.java:706) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBinding > (InjectorImpl.java:929) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBindingRecursive > (InjectorImpl.java:852) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getJustInTimeBinding > (InjectorImpl.java:291) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getBindingOrThrow > (InjectorImpl.java:222) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProviderOrThrow > (InjectorImpl.java:1040) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider > (InjectorImpl.java:1071) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider > (InjectorImpl.java:1034) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getInstance > (InjectorImpl.java:1086) > at org.eclipse.sisu.space.AbstractDeferredClass.get > (AbstractDeferredClass.java:48) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.provision > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:85) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.provision > (InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:57) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory$1.call > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:66) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:112) > at org.eclipse.sisu.bean.BeanScheduler$CycleActivator.onProvision > (BeanScheduler.java:230) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:120) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback.provision > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:66) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.circularGet > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:61) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.get > (InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:47) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.get > (ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.java:40) > at com.google.inject.internal.SingletonScope$1.get > (SingletonScope.java:148) > at com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.get > (InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.java:39) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl$1.get > (InjectorImpl.java:1050) > at org.eclipse.sisu.inject.LazyBeanEntry.getValue > (LazyBeanEntry.java:81) > at org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.LazyPlexusBean.getValue > (LazyPlexusBean.java:51) > at org.eclipse.sisu.wire.EntryListAdapter$ValueIterator.next > (EntryListAdapter.java:111) > at java.util.AbstractCollection.addAll (AbstractCollection.java:343) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.getLifecycleParticipants > (DefaultMaven.java:377) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute (DefaultMaven.java:206) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute (DefaultMaven.java:192) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute (DefaultMaven.java:105) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute (MavenCli.java:954) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.doMain (MavenCli.java:288) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main (MavenCli.java:192) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0 (Native Method) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62) > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke > (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:498) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launchEnhanced > (Launcher.java:289) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launch > (Launcher.java:229) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithExitCode > (Launcher.java:415) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main > (Launcher.java:356) > Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: > org.apache.maven.feature.api.MavenFeatureContext > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.strategy.SelfFirstStrategy.loadClass > (SelfFirstStrategy.java:50) > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.unsynchronizedLoadClass > (ClassRealm.java:271) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.loadClass > (ClassRealm.java:247) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.loadClass > (ClassRealm.java:239) > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0 (Native Method) > at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors (Class.java:2671) > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors (Class.java:2020) > at com.google.inject.spi.InjectionPoint.forConstructorOf > (InjectionPoint.java:245) > at com.google.inject.internal.ConstructorBindingImpl.create > (ConstructorBindingImpl.java:115) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createUninitializedBinding > (InjectorImpl.java:706) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBinding > (InjectorImpl.java:929) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBindingRecursive > (InjectorImpl.java:852) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getJustInTimeBinding > (InjectorImpl.java:291) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getBindingOrThrow > (InjectorImpl.java:222) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProviderOrThrow > (InjectorImpl.java:1040) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider > (InjectorImpl.java:1071) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider > (InjectorImpl.java:1034) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getInstance > (InjectorImpl.java:1086) > at org.eclipse.sisu.space.AbstractDeferredClass.get > (AbstractDeferredClass.java:48) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.provision > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:85) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.provision > (InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:57) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory$1.call > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:66) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:112) > at org.eclipse.sisu.bean.BeanScheduler$CycleActivator.onProvision > (BeanScheduler.java:230) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:120) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback.provision > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:66) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.circularGet > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:61) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.get > (InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:47) > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.get > (ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.java:40) > at com.google.inject.internal.SingletonScope$1.get > (SingletonScope.java:148) > at com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.get > (InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.java:39) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl$1.get > (InjectorImpl.java:1050) > at org.eclipse.sisu.inject.LazyBeanEntry.getValue > (LazyBeanEntry.java:81) > at org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.LazyPlexusBean.getValue > (LazyPlexusBean.java:51) > at org.eclipse.sisu.wire.EntryListAdapter$ValueIterator.next > (EntryListAdapter.java:111) > at java.util.AbstractCollection.addAll (AbstractCollection.java:343) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.getLifecycleParticipants > (DefaultMaven.java:377) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute (DefaultMaven.java:206) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute (DefaultMaven.java:192) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute (DefaultMaven.java:105) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute (MavenCli.java:954) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.doMain (MavenCli.java:288) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main (MavenCli.java:192) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0 (Native Method) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62) > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke > (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:498) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launchEnhanced > (Launcher.java:289) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launch > (Launcher.java:229) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithExitCode > (Launcher.java:415) > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main > (Launcher.java:356) > --------------------------------------------------- > constituent[0]: file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/conf/logging/ > constituent[1]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-repository-metadata-3.5.4.jar > constituent[2]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-transport-wagon-1.1.1.jar > constituent[3]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/aopalliance-1.0.jar > constituent[4]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-provider-3.5.4.jar > constituent[5]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-utils-3.1.0.jar > constituent[6]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-interpolation-1.24.jar > constituent[7]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-artifact-3.5.4.jar > constituent[8]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-cipher-1.7.jar > constituent[9]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/guava-20.0.jar > constituent[10]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.5.4.jar > constituent[11]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/slf4j-api-1.7.25.jar > constituent[12]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/cdi-api-1.0.jar > constituent[13]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/jcl-over-slf4j-1.7.25.jar > constituent[14]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-spi-1.1.1.jar > constituent[15]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-compat-3.5.4.jar > constituent[16]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-plugin-api-3.5.4.jar > constituent[17]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-sec-dispatcher-1.4.jar > constituent[18]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-util-1.1.1.jar > constituent[19]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-component-annotations-1.7.1.jar > constituent[20]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-settings-builder-3.5.4.jar > constituent[21]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/commons-cli-1.4.jar > constituent[22]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/commons-io-2.5.jar > constituent[23]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/jansi-1.17.1.jar > constituent[24]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-core-3.5.4.jar > constituent[25]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-impl-1.1.1.jar > constituent[26]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/guice-4.2.0-no_aop.jar > constituent[27]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/org.eclipse.sisu.inject-0.3.3.jar > constituent[28]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/wagon-file-3.1.0.jar > constituent[29]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-builder-support-3.5.4.jar > constituent[30]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-model-3.5.4.jar > constituent[31]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-settings-3.5.4.jar > constituent[32]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/wagon-http-3.1.0-shaded.jar > constituent[33]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-api-1.1.1.jar > constituent[34]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-connector-basic-1.1.1.jar > constituent[35]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-shared-utils-3.2.1.jar > constituent[36]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/org.eclipse.sisu.plexus-0.3.3.jar > constituent[37]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-model-builder-3.5.4.jar > constituent[38]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/javax.inject-1.jar > constituent[39]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-embedder-3.5.4.jar > constituent[40]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/jsr250-api-1.0.jar > constituent[41]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/commons-lang3-3.5.jar > constituent[42]: > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/wagon-provider-api-3.1.0.jar > --------------------------------------------------- > Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: > org/apache/maven/feature/api/MavenFeatureContext > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0(Native Method) > at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors(Class.java:2671) > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors(Class.java:2020) > at > com.google.inject.spi.InjectionPoint.forConstructorOf(InjectionPoint.java:245) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ConstructorBindingImpl.create(ConstructorBindingImpl.java:115) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createUninitializedBinding(InjectorImpl.java:706) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBinding(InjectorImpl.java:929) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBindingRecursive(InjectorImpl.java:852) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getJustInTimeBinding(InjectorImpl.java:291) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getBindingOrThrow(InjectorImpl.java:222) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProviderOrThrow(InjectorImpl.java:1040) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider(InjectorImpl.java:1071) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider(InjectorImpl.java:1034) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getInstance(InjectorImpl.java:1086) > at > org.eclipse.sisu.space.AbstractDeferredClass.get(AbstractDeferredClass.java:48) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.provision(ProviderInternalFactory.java:85) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.provision(InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:57) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory$1.call(ProviderInternalFactory.java:66) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision(ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:112) > at > org.eclipse.sisu.bean.BeanScheduler$CycleActivator.onProvision(BeanScheduler.java:230) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision(ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:120) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback.provision(ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:66) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.circularGet(ProviderInternalFactory.java:61) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.get(InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:47) > at > com.google.inject.internal.ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.get(ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.java:40) > at com.google.inject.internal.SingletonScope$1.get(SingletonScope.java:148) > at > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.get(InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.java:39) > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl$1.get(InjectorImpl.java:1050) > at org.eclipse.sisu.inject.LazyBeanEntry.getValue(LazyBeanEntry.java:81) > at org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.LazyPlexusBean.getValue(LazyPlexusBean.java:51) > at > org.eclipse.sisu.wire.EntryListAdapter$ValueIterator.next(EntryListAdapter.java:111) > at java.util.AbstractCollection.addAll(AbstractCollection.java:343) > at > org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.getLifecycleParticipants(DefaultMaven.java:377) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:206) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:192) > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute(DefaultMaven.java:105) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute(MavenCli.java:954) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.doMain(MavenCli.java:288) > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main(MavenCli.java:192) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) > at > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62) > at > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498) > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launchEnhanced(Launcher.java:289) > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launch(Launcher.java:229) > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithExitCode(Launcher.java:415) > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main(Launcher.java:356) > Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: > org.apache.maven.feature.api.MavenFeatureContext > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.strategy.SelfFirstStrategy.loadClass(SelfFirstStrategy.java:50) > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.unsynchronizedLoadClass(ClassRealm.java:271) > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.loadClass(ClassRealm.java:247) > at > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.loadClass(ClassRealm.java:239) > ... 47 more > > I'd like to make the error message nicer, but I'll need to dig further > into Sisu. In any case it has the desired effect of preventing building a > project that uses the experiment with a version of Maven that does not > support the experimental features. > > The main point of experiments is to provide a way for people to try out a > feature *that requires adapting your project to use that feature* in a safe > way that prevents users from accidentally building with a different version > of Maven. My goal would be to maybe release a > 3.7.0-alpha-rfc-dynamic-phases-1 build of Maven with this experiment turned > on to gather wider feedback. Anyone using the feature would then be fully > aware that the experiment may end up different when we actually decide what > we want to do, but can then easily try it out without a big song and dance. > > NOTE: the pom rewriting that Robert has scheduled for 3.7.0 is IMHO not > appropriate for this kind of experiment as it doesn't affect the actual > build behaviour. If we have implemented pom rewriting correctly, users > should not notice and shouldn't need to update their pom. Dynamic phases > does require the pom to be updated, hence why it needs a more heavy-handed > enforcement through extensions (also the enforcer plugin wouldn't guarantee > execution on all lifecycles, so if you did something in after:clean > enforcer wouldn't have run) > > -Stephen > > On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 21:16, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri 15 Nov 2019 at 15:18, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> I have to admit that when trying to figure out from a Maven perspective >>> it felt like post-X should be called with pre-X too, but that opinion has >>> changed. >>> Why would anybody call pre-X? I'd say to bring the system ready to do >>> custom X stuff, so it should stop here executing any other phases. >>> However, when pre-X fails, I can imagine that post-X should be called >>> too, as Maven wasn't able to bring the system in the right state. >>> >>> The problem lies in that Maven restarts the lifecycle. If only we could >>> do something like >>> - run up until pre-X (pause the lifecycle execution) >>> - do your custom stuff >>> - finish with the post-X >>> >>> Thinking about some kind of pause... This way at least we won't break >>> the lifecycle and leave it clean. >>> >> >> That’s easy. Have a Maven-pause-plugin that just waits for you to press >> enter. Bind it to integration-test in a profile and presto! >> >> But that removes the need for the current explicit phases of pre- and >> post- >> >> TBH I think we need to lay down the plan that we want to go towards. It >> will take a while to change existing phases, in part because removing >> phases is a breaking change. You can have 3rd part plugins that bind >> executions to multiple phases, expecting those phases to both exist and >> have specific execution behaviour. >> >> Hence why I think we should go all the way technically, but leave the >> lifecycle mostly as-is (modulo adding any new phases and flagging existing >> phases as deprecated). >> >> Half measures will only prolong to pain for users. >> >> If instead we say: “here’s where we were, here’s where we’re going and >> this is how we get there” people can incorporate that and adapt >> >> Messing about with one phase, that’s just hacks. Adding the ability to >> define phase execution guarantees... that’s where we want to go. Adding the >> ability to control plugin execution order within phases... that’s where we >> want to go... is the syntax where we want to go? Probably not, but it’s how >> we can get there >> >>> >>> >>> On 15-11-2019 11:07:23, Stephen Connolly < >>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri 15 Nov 2019 at 09:18, Robert Scholte wrote: >>> >>> > On 13-11-2019 21:46:04, Stephen Connolly >>> > wrote: >>> > On Wed 13 Nov 2019 at 19:29, Robert Scholte wrote: >>> > >>> > > The name of the branch contains MNG-5668, but it contains much more. >>> > > I'd likely lead to comments like "great", without being explicit >>> saying >>> > > which part(s). >>> > > I am aware there's all proposals touch the same code, but can be >>> released >>> > > isolated from each other. >>> > > e.g. if the enums-value are changed to "pre-" and "post-" it should >>> work >>> > > for the existing phases, which means we could already use it quite >>> soon >>> > > (still need to test it myself, though) >>> > > I also want to provide a counter proposal, but that takes time and >>> for me >>> > > there are other issues more important. >>> > >>> > >>> > How would you handle the use case that we’ve already had reported: >>> > >>> > As a user I want to test my integration tests in my IDE by running `mvn >>> > integration-test` so that the test environment is not torn down and I >>> can >>> > debug and rerun the tests until I’m ready >>> > >>> > Robert Scholte: >>> > I'd say if they want to set up there environment for the integration >>> > tests, they'd be running pre-integration-test. >>> > Next select in the IDE the test to execute. I don't see an issue here. >>> > Calling pre-integration-test implies NOT running post-integration-test. >>> >>> >>> I disagree. I think if you run the pre- phase then you should have the >>> post- also run >>> >>> I think we could have a differential failure mode in the pre-phases >>> though. >>> Iow a pre- phase failure returns a different exit code than the actual >>> phase itself >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Every time I explain people about how Maven works with phases, they are >>> > amazed it doesn't run the post-phase. I doubt we'll see issues if we >>> switch >>> > to expected behavior. >>> > >>> > Based on the different views, I hope to see more involvement of PMC >>> > members, because this will be a turning point that probable cannot be >>> > undone. >>> > >>> > >>> > With the new phases, the existing pom will still work, and some user >>> opting >>> > into after:integration-test knows what they are getting >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > My biggest fear is that this will result in an All-Or-Nothing, and I >>> like >>> > > to prevent that. If the try-finally part works as expected we can >>> extract >>> > > that part and prepare for one of the next Maven releases. >>> > >>> > >>> > I’d like to understand your fear better. I’ve been playing with the >>> PoC a >>> > bit, and TBH it just feels right. >>> > >>> > For sure I’d prefer a schema change to encoding in a string, but I’m >>> also >>> > inclined towards string encoded dependency GAVs for 5.x so that >>> wouldn’t be >>> > the worst if we went that way. >>> > >>> > With pom rewriting, I think we could do a 4.1.0 model version that >>> moved >>> > the execution point and priority to attributes, by writing as a 4.0.0 >>> with >>> > the string encoded form... iow rewriting in 4.x allows us to tidy up >>> the >>> > schema as long as it has a 1:1 mapping to a 4.0.0 modelVersion that >>> gets >>> > deployed. >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Robert >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 12-11-2019 10:25:42, Stephen Connolly >>> > > wrote: >>> > > On Tue 12 Nov 2019 at 07:34, Robert Scholte wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > This is not just MNG-5668, but also contains several non-existing >>> > issues, >>> > > > that should be mentioned explicitly as they will have huge impact: >>> > > > >>> > > > - support before:/after: prefix for phase-binding >>> > > > >>> > > > - introduce priority >>> > > > - reduce phases (this one hasn't been implemented, but seems to be >>> the >>> > > > reason behind before:/after:) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > All detailed in the proposal on the wiki: >>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases >>> > > >>> > > Reducing phases would be a big change and not before 4.x at least >>> (maybe >>> > > 5.x more realistically... at least we’d need to deprecate the phases >>> for >>> > a >>> > > good while before removing any) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > I would like see separate branches for all of them, as they all >>> have >>> > > their >>> > > > own discussion. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > The whole point of a PoC is the get feedback. I don’t see utility in >>> > > separate branches as they are all touching the same code. >>> > > >>> > > Once we get feedback we can decide where we want to go from there. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Robert >>> > > > On 11-11-2019 20:31:44, Stephen Connolly >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/tree/mng-5668-poc is my POC >>> > > implementation >>> > > > for anyone interested in trying it out. >>> > > > >>> > > > Here's a pom that builds with the PoC >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 4.0.0 >>> > > > localdomain >>> > > > foo >>> > > > 1.0-SNAPSHOT >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > maven-antrun-plugin >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 1 >>> > > > before:integration-test >>> > > > >>> > > > run >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 2 >>> > > > before:integration-test[1000] >>> > > > >>> > > > run >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 3 >>> > > > after:integration-test >>> > > > >>> > > > run >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 4 >>> > > > integration-test >>> > > > >>> > > > run >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 10:55, Robert Scholte wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > TLDR: We can do better than, but who is in control? >>> lifecycle-owner, >>> > > > > plugin-owner or pom-owner? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I think we all recognize the issues we're trying to solve, but >>> to me >>> > > this >>> > > > > proposal is not the right solution. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > In general there are 2 issues: >>> > > > > 1. provide a mechanism that makes sure some executions are called >>> > even >>> > > > its >>> > > > > matching main phase fails. >>> > > > > 2. provide a mechanism then ensures the order of executions. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > The problem of issue 1 is described in MNG-5668, but not the >>> final >>> > > > > solution. >>> > > > > MNG-5668 proposes to give this power to the *lifecycle-owner*, >>> > whereas >>> > > > > stage 2 proposes to give the power to the *pom-owner*. >>> > > > > Both agree on the same thing: by default these post-phases >>> should be >>> > > > > triggered even after failure of the matching main phase. This is >>> > > actually >>> > > > > already expected behavior, so I don't expect real issues when >>> > > > implementing >>> > > > > this adjusted behavior. >>> > > > > To me after:integration-test is just an alias for >>> > > post-integration-test, >>> > > > > both should work the same way. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Issue 2 is a more common problem: controlling the order of >>> > executions. >>> > > > > In some cases it is pretty hard or even impossible to get the >>> > preferred >>> > > > > order. The latter happens when 2 goals of the same plugin must be >>> > > > executed >>> > > > > and a goal of another plugin are competing within the same phase. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > So let's first take a look at a phase: is there a clear >>> definition? >>> > > > > "A phase is a step in what Maven calls a 'build lifecycle'. The >>> build >>> > > > > lifecycle is an ordered sequence of phases involved in building a >>> > > > project". >>> > > > > "Lifecycle phases are intentionally vague, defined solely as >>> > > > > validation, testing, or deployment, and they may mean different >>> > things >>> > > to >>> > > > > different projects." >>> > > > > Phases are intended to be called from the commandline, and >>> within the >>> > > pom >>> > > > > you define you can control what should happen before or during >>> that >>> > > > phase. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > To me changing the content of the -element is a codesmell as it >>> > > > > becomes more than just a phase, and we start programming. Why do >>> we >>> > > need >>> > > > it? >>> > > > > In the end it is all about ensuring the order of plugin >>> executions. >>> > > > > Stage3+4 proposes to give the power to the *pom-owner*, >>> > > > > whereas MPLUGIN-350[2] proposes to give this power to the >>> > > *plugin-owner*. >>> > > > > IIUR Gradle does not have this issue, because their plugins are >>> aware >>> > > of >>> > > > > input and output. They ensure that if the output plugin X is the >>> > input >>> > > of >>> > > > > plugin Y, than X is executed before Y. >>> > > > > And we should do the same. And this comes with benefits: we can >>> > decide >>> > > if >>> > > > > executions within a project can be executed in parallel. And the >>> pom >>> > > > stays >>> > > > > as clean as it is right now. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > In cases when there's a better ownership than the pom-owner, I >>> would >>> > > > > prefer to choose that solution. I already notice how people >>> (don't) >>> > > build >>> > > > > up their knowledge regarding poms. The lifecycle-owner and >>> > plugin-owner >>> > > > > know much better what they're doing. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > thanks, >>> > > > > Robert >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Some food for thoughts: consider a developer that wants to run up >>> > until >>> > > > > pre-integration-test, because he wants to bring his system in a >>> > certain >>> > > > > state so he can work with IDE to do some work.Can we say that If >>> And >>> > > Only >>> > > > > If somebody called the pre-PHASE, there's no reason to end with >>> the >>> > > > > post-PHASE? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5668 >>> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-350 >>> > > > > On 26-10-2019 14:20:50, Stephen Connolly >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > On Sat 26 Oct 2019 at 10:50, Robert Scholte wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > To avoid confusion, let's call it stages. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Stage 1: Always call post-bound executions (MNG-5665[1]) >>> > > > > > Stage 2: before and after >>> > > > > > Stage 3: priorities (MNG-3522[2]) >>> > > > > > Stage 4: transitional lifecycle >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I have a prototype of stages 1-3 nearly (80%) done... just have >>> to >>> > > polish >>> > > > > up and validate the bound executions with some tests >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > For both all you need to start evaluating the value of phase. >>> > > > > > For now we can assume that after:clean is just another label >>> for >>> > > > > > post-clean and will have exactly the same effect. >>> > > > > > MNG-5665 contains a proposal to change the xml, but we >>> shouldn't do >>> > > > that >>> > > > > > (yet). Let's start with a hardcoded list of postphases (or in >>> case >>> > a >>> > > > goal >>> > > > > > fails, see if a post-x phase exists). Stage 1 is to make it >>> work, >>> > > > stage 2 >>> > > > > > to make it configurable. >>> > > > > > IIRC you cannot ask from inside a Mojo if is was called >>> explicitly >>> > or >>> > > > > > because it was bound to a phase, nor can you ask for the value >>> of >>> > > this >>> > > > > > phase. I kind of like this, plugins shouldn't care about this. >>> > > > > > However, inside Maven it will become important at which phase >>> it is >>> > > to >>> > > > > > know if there are more executions to call OR create blocks of >>> > > > executions. >>> > > > > > Now it is just a list of executions: loop and fail fast. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > thanks, >>> > > > > > Robert >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5665 >>> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-3522 >>> > > > > > On 25-10-2019 21:33:14, Stephen Connolly >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > Robert, >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > I would be fine splitting out into, pardon the pun, phases: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Phase 1: before and after >>> > > > > > Phase 2: priorities >>> > > > > > Phase 3: transitional lifecycle >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Might have a phase 1.5 of before:* and after:* to catch the >>> start >>> > of >>> > > a >>> > > > > > lifecycle and the end of a lifecycle... >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:30, Stephen Connolly >>> > > > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com [mailto: >>> > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com >>> > > > > ]> >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Robert, Michael, Tibor, let’s continue here (though I asked >>> Infra >>> > and >>> > > > > it’s >>> > > > > > fine that anyone in the community can join our Slack) >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:01, Stephen Connolly >>> > > > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com [mailto: >>> > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com >>> > > > > ]> >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases [ >>> > > > > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases] >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Thoughts? >>> > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Sent from my phone >>> > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Sent from my phone >>> > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Sent from my phone >>> > > > > >>> > > > > -- >>> > > > > Sent from my phone >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Sent from my phone >>> > > >>> > -- >>> > Sent from my phone >>> > >>> -- >>> Sent from my phone >>> >> -- >> Sent from my phone >> >
