Hey Romain, Your example will work with -N when MNG-7112 [1] is implemented (which we are working on as we speak). MNG-7112 says: -N together with a project exclusion (via -pl) will make the project exclusion non-recursive. So it will not exclude the children. Following your example,
> cd images-parent && mvn myplugin:mygoal -pl '!images-parent' *-N* will work. It will only build the children of images-parent. -N will apply to -pl when -pl is present. That said, -N without -pl will work as it works in 3.6.3: only the pom in the current directory will be built (or the pom specified with -f). I hope this clears it up, Martin [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7112 Op ma 22 mrt. 2021 om 13:26 schreef Romain Manni-Bucau < rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > Just saw the PR was merged but it is actually still a regression, what's > the plan to keep this kind of build working: > > Structure: > > . root > |- core > |- ... > `- images-parent // can be assemblies too or anything else > |- image1 > |- ... > `- imageN > > > cd images-parent && mvn myplugin:mygoal -pl '!images-parent' > > This command has the big advantage to launch a command on all children but > the root pom (where the plugin would fail - note in practise it is a > combination of N plugins in general). > > You mentionned '-N' which does not solve this new bug AFAIK, a profile does > not as well, a skip property or any additional requirement on mojo are > indeed undersired, so what is the plan to get back to something functional? > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > Le dim. 28 févr. 2021 à 11:57, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > a > écrit : > > > > > > > Le dim. 28 févr. 2021 à 10:15, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> a > > écrit : > > > >> We should be talking about consistency. > >> We have a flag --non-recursive, which implies that recursive is the > >> default. > >> With Maven 3 that is just not always the case and this should be fixed. > >> Maven 4 is the right version to do so. > >> > >> Using -pl <arg> -N does not work with Maven 3: it'll say "Couldn't find > >> the selected project in the reactor" > >> Being able to use this combination AND making -pl recursive by default > >> makes everything consistent. > >> > > > > Can be seen this way so choice is between consistency and backward > > compatibility, I'm clearly favoring last one which would be way more > costly > > in the ecosystem than the first one as of today (plus it is not that > > inconsistent today since it either works or is forbidden). > > > > > >> > >> The argument that this change will break backwards compatibility is less > >> important to me and is actually not true. By switching to recursive by > >> default and calling -pl <module> it will still build the module ... and > >> more. We're not building less! > >> > > > > But we break a lot which is the worse a so much used project as Maven > can > > do for a new major. > > > > > >> > >> The question you need to ask yourself every time in case of a pom > >> packaged project: > >> Do I want to build the parent? call -pl <arg> -N > >> Do I want to build the aggregated modules call -pl <arg> > >> > >> Consistency is key: ensure that you can always add --non-recursive/-N. > >> This will always and only build the selected projects, no exclusions, > and > >> otherwise it'll be recursive. > >> > > > > pl definition is about built module so you enforce consistency changing > > the definition which is unfair and really the impact is not blocking > since > > the fix is not hard but really bothering for *no* new feature on user > land > > so I really prefer the alternatives. > > > > > >> > >> Robert > >> > >> On 26-2-2021 14:45:18, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le ven. 26 févr. 2021 à 14:30, Robert Scholte a > >> écrit : > >> > >> > This discussion is about aggregators, and not about parent. > >> > Quite often an aggregator is also the parent of its modules, but that > is > >> > not required. > >> > > >> > >> Ack > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Calling -pl with Maven3 behaves unnatural: if you want to > >> > call a specific aggregator, you want its modules to be built. > >> > > >> > >> I disagree, it looks unatural if you know it is an aggregator but there > is > >> no way to know form maven standpoint, it is a pom which children and > with > >> packaging=pom which does not mean it is an aggregator. > >> To give a quick example of that: the strict aggregator case will desire > to > >> build children but not the aggregator itself (functionally) whereas all > >> other cases want the pom itself. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Hence I still support the change to make this the default behavior. > >> > > >> > In those rare cases where you want to build it only because it is a > >> parent > >> > (and not for the aggregator part), it makes sense to add > --non-recursive > >> > > >> > >> It is not rare, it is actually very very common to use it as a prestep > on > >> CI builds and the new behavior break it all. > >> Since the value of pl is already an expression ([groupId]:artifactId), > it > >> is saner to use it and enrich this semantic to support "project with > >> child" > >> meaning for end users IMHO. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > All the options you had in Maven 3 for selecting a subset of a > >> multimodule > >> > project are still available in Maven 4. > >> > > >> > >> Maven 4 is not an opportunity to break existing builds IMHO, it would > >> deserve maven, it is an opportunity to break internals and build > pipeline > >> for sure. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > To me the new behavior is much better. Maven 4 is the perfect version > to > >> > introduce these changes. > >> > > >> > thanks, > >> > Robert > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 26-2-2021 14:02:29, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> > I still think it is wrong to have such a global toggle + break > backward > >> > compatibility (-pl + -N is *already* used for what it is today which > is > >> not > >> > the proposal but -pl parent without -N is also already used and works > >> > well). > >> > You can also take into consideration that -pl -module -N meaning is > >> > completely broken with this new definition. > >> > For these 3 reasons I think we shouldn't break current API and either > >> add a > >> > new toggle/syntax (>parent or !!parent or whatever forbidden character > >> in > >> > module names/folder fits you) or not do anything since nothing > prevents > >> to > >> > build a subtree with -pl as of today, it is just a bit more verbose > >> than a > >> > single module selection. > >> > > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > @rmannibucau | Blog > >> > | Old Blog > >> > | Github | > >> > LinkedIn | Book > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Le ven. 26 févr. 2021 à 13:16, Martin Kanters a > >> > écrit : > >> > > >> > > I've had a talk this morning with Robert Scholte and Maarten Mulders > >> > about > >> > > this, since I had the feeling we were not getting further in this > mail > >> > > thread. > >> > > > >> > > First of all, we all agreed that we definitely needed functionality > >> for > >> > > both recursive and non-recursive project selection. What Robert > >> prefers > >> > is > >> > > the following: reusing existing flags if possible and no extra magic > >> in > >> > the > >> > > -pl syntax. So that boils down to "-pl + -N". By default, project > >> > selection > >> > > will be recursive and by passing -N to it, it will be switched to > >> > > non-recursive. > >> > > > >> > > While first I was hesitant on this solution, I realize now that this > >> is > >> > the > >> > > most user-friendly solution. Technically -N might mean different > >> things > >> > > when used with and without -pl, but functionally it's the same. > >> > > > >> > > Two points of concern were: > >> > > - "it's a global switch, we cannot select a recursive and > >> non-recursive > >> > > project in one maven-command". That's true, but that's currently > also > >> not > >> > > possible in 3.6.3 (automatically) and we should find the balance > >> between > >> > > usability and ensuring every possible scenario is possible. > >> > > - "it might cause a performance degradation". This is not true when > >> the > >> > > current behavior of -N will only change when used together with -pl. > >> > > > >> > > We’ll continue work in this direction. Feel free to raise any new > >> > concerns > >> > > if they arise. > >> > > > >> > > Martin > >> > > > >> > > Op zo 21 feb. 2021 om 22:29 schreef Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > > > >> > > > Put some comments inline but agree another minilanguage solution > >> works. > >> > > > Maybe -pl !!parent? > >> > > > > >> > > > Le dim. 21 févr. 2021 à 22:08, Martin Kanters > >> > > a > >> > > > écrit : > >> > > > > >> > > > > Romain: 2 has overlap if I'm not mistaken, what if the user > >> invokes: > >> > > mvn > >> > > > > -pl project-a -plr !project-a. Perhaps the user should be able > to > >> > only > >> > > > > select aggregator poms via -plr.. > >> > > > > And I'm not sure how the alias function would work. I assume > >> > something > >> > > > > like: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes but same as today with -pl foo -pl!foo. We can fail in such a > >> case > >> > > too > >> > > > (my preference). Then more specific wins, ie -plr parent -pl > >> > !parent/foo > >> > > is > >> > > > obvious. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > - pom.xml config (psuedo code): -pl parent, submodule-a, > >> > > > > submodule-b, submodule-c > >> > > > > - invocation mvn alias:rec. > >> > > > > If that assumption is correct, the user would have to manually > >> > maintain > >> > > > the > >> > > > > list of modules of "parent", while Maven can do this perfectly. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Right, is it an issue? I dont think. Opposite is true too, you > need > >> to > >> > > > maintain children exclusions in general (all but "build" child > >> module > >> > or > >> > > > all but front or all but doc etc) so 1-1 IMHO. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Falko: I don't intend to drop the recursive behavior either :) > >> > > > > I don't dislike the idea of adding a suffix to a project to > >> include > >> > > > > everything recursively and + might fix the shell expansion issue > >> > > (which * > >> > > > > has). > >> > > > > I guess this might be a nice alternative as well, but I'm not > >> sure if > >> > > > > everybody likes increasing the complexity of the -pl syntax. > "-pl > >> > > > !?proj/+" > >> > > > > or "-pl !?group:artifact+" is starting to look a bit like > magic.. > >> :) > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Martin > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Op zo 21 feb. 2021 om 21:38 schreef Falko Modler : > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > My 2 cents: Please don't drop the recursive behavior again > >> because > >> > it > >> > > > is > >> > > > > > really useful! > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Crazy idea (just brainstorming here): > >> > > > > > -pl foo builds only foo > >> > > > > > -pl foo+ builds foo and its children, wherever they are > exactly > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > This would also co-exist with the ! and ? prefixes. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > PS: Since if often use shell path completion, -pl foo/+ should > >> have > >> > > the > >> > > > > > same effect, ideally. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Cheers, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Falko > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Am 21.02.2021 um 21:09 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau: > >> > > > > > > Le dim. 21 févr. 2021 à 20:39, Martin Kanters > >> > > > > martinkant...@apache.org> > >> > > > > > a > >> > > > > > > écrit : > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hm, so I guess that's indeed a valid reason to keep the old > >> > > > > > functionality > >> > > > > > >> working. Thanks for the enlightenment, Romain. > >> > > > > > >> Still I think it makes more sense to make project selection > >> > > > recursive > >> > > > > by > >> > > > > > >> default, but it's not straightforward to come up with a > nice > >> > > > > > combination of > >> > > > > > >> flags. > >> > > > > > >> Let's summarize: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> 1. -pl + -N: > >> > > > > > >> While it does sound like the flag to re-use, I do not like > >> the > >> > > fact > >> > > > > > that -N > >> > > > > > >> works differently than normal when used together with -pl. > >> The > >> > > code > >> > > > > > would > >> > > > > > >> become more complex and the flag hard to explain to users. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Does not really solves the issue as soon as you use it for 2 > >> > > > different > >> > > > > > kind > >> > > > > > > of modules until it becomes -plN which is 4 IMHO > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. -pl + -plr: > >> > > > > > >> This gives the most flexibility, giving users the option to > >> > select > >> > > > > > >> non-recursive and recursive projects in one command. The > two > >> > flags > >> > > > > have > >> > > > > > a > >> > > > > > >> lot of overlap though, what happens when a project is > >> selected > >> > > with > >> > > > > -pl > >> > > > > > and > >> > > > > > >> deselected with -plr, which gets precedence etc. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > -plr without -pl, dont use a global toggle probably. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ex: -pl parent-with-plugins -plr myaggregator -pl foo/bar > -plr > >> > > > > > docker-images > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 3. -pl /* > >> > > > > > >> This gives the same flexibility as 2, but then in one > >> command. I > >> > > do > >> > > > > like > >> > > > > > >> that, but it can get messy with shell expansion. One other > >> thing > >> > > is > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > > >> with -pl you can select projects using the directory, but > >> also > >> > by > >> > > > > > >> (optionally groupid and) artifactId. The star (or its > >> > replacement) > >> > > > > could > >> > > > > > >> mean different things when used in either variant. Mind > that > >> > > > > submodules > >> > > > > > do > >> > > > > > >> not have to be placed directly in a subdirectory. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Other issue is maven works with not linear (tree) children > so > >> can > >> > > be > >> > > > > > > complex to handle when parents or children are in other > >> physical > >> > > tree > >> > > > > or > >> > > > > > > even projects. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 4. (new idea) -pl + --pl-non-recursive: > >> > > > > > >> This does not have the flexibility 2 and 3 provides and we > >> would > >> > > > have > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > >> introduce a new CLI flag. But it does have a very clear > goal > >> > which > >> > > > is > >> > > > > > easy > >> > > > > > >> to implement + explain. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Hmm another global toggle? It will have the same combination > >> > issue > >> > > > than > >> > > > > > -N > >> > > > > > > IMHO. > >> > > > > > > So overall this sounds like reversing -pl and adding this > >> > > > complementary > >> > > > > > > option so 2 sounds the saner equivalent option for backward > >> > compat. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 5. Revert all and restore 3.6.3 functionality. > >> > > > > > >> Users could build extensions or plugin functionality to > >> achieve > >> > > the > >> > > > > > >> recursiveness. Not my favorite, because I think this is > >> > something > >> > > > > Maven > >> > > > > > >> Core should be able to provide out of the box. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > "Extension" can be built in too, just mentionned we can > solve > >> it > >> > > > > > > differently than enriching again the cli since functionally > we > >> > > > already > >> > > > > > > cover it. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 6. Make recursiveness the default and do not provide a > >> > workaround > >> > > > for > >> > > > > > >> non-recursiveness > >> > > > > > >> Since we are going to a new major version it's acceptable > to > >> > > > > > break/change > >> > > > > > >> existing behavior. We could wait until users complain and > >> then > >> > > build > >> > > > > > >> something in. > >> > > > > > >> Not my favorite (anymore) either, since apparently it's a > >> common > >> > > > > > use-case > >> > > > > > >> that we would break. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Just my 2cts but sounds the worse. > >> > > > > > > Even if going major backward compat is key for not internals > >> > > > otherwise > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > > do another build tool and break everyone which is always a > >> moment > >> > > of > >> > > > > > > temptation to reject the tool, in particular when trivial to > >> > avoid > >> > > > from > >> > > > > > > user PoV. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I understand the thread might've become hard to follow, so > I > >> > hope > >> > > > this > >> > > > > > >> summary helps other people to join the discussion. > >> > > > > > >> My current favorite is 4. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Personally, I'd say investigate alias option and if not > >> > satistying > >> > > > then > >> > > > > > use > >> > > > > > > 2. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Martin > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Op za 20 feb. 2021 om 17:53 schreef Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > > > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >>> I like the regex idea but wildcard (*) does not work well > >> due > >> > to > >> > > > > common > >> > > > > > >>> shell expansion (or it already works but it is outside of > >> maven > >> > > > scope > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > >> be > >> > > > > > >>> concrete). > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> My 2cts would be that, to be honest, I think we all lead > to > >> > have > >> > > > > > aliases > >> > > > > > >> in > >> > > > > > >>> maven for potentially very long commands (there was some > >> > threads > >> > > > > about > >> > > > > > >> it), > >> > > > > > >>> CLI then just needs to enable to activate/deactivate > things, > >> > not > >> > > to > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > > >>> clever and it would enable all combination without any > >> behavior > >> > > > > change > >> > > > > > >> nor > >> > > > > > >>> new option IMHO. Concretely "mvn alias:bd" would run "mvn > >> -pl > >> > > > foo/bar > >> > > > > > -pl > >> > > > > > >>> foo/dummy" for example. Thinking out loud it can be done > >> with a > >> > > > > plugin > >> > > > > > >>> already so can maybe give a try if it sounds like a good > >> idea > >> > for > >> > > > > > others > >> > > > > > >>> too. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > > > > >>> @rmannibucau | Blog > >> > > > > > >>> | Old Blog > >> > > > > > >>> | Github > >> > > > > > >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >> > > > > > >>> LinkedIn | Book > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 à 14:40, Falko Modler a > >> > > > > > écrit : > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>>> Thanks for the quick reaction/answers! > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> TBH, I haven't fully understood why -N cannot be used > >> here. I > >> > do > >> > > > > > >>>> understand that -N reduces the reactor to one project > >> (before > >> > > > > project > >> > > > > > >>>> selection via -pl can kick in). > >> > > > > > >>>> But what if -N wouldn't be applied if -pl is present? It > >> would > >> > > > then > >> > > > > > >>> become > >> > > > > > >>>> a "secondary" option, only applying to the projects > >> selected > >> > or > >> > > > > > >>> deselected > >> > > > > > >>>> via -pl. > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> However, the most flexible and fully backwards compatiple > >> > > solution > >> > > > > > >> would > >> > > > > > >>>> indeed be something like -plr as suggested before. You > >> could > >> > > then > >> > > > > also > >> > > > > > >>> mix > >> > > > > > >>>> and match -pl and -plr. > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> Btw, half offtopic: I proposed [1] to add ? to -pl and in > >> that > >> > > > > context > >> > > > > > >> I > >> > > > > > >>>> also thought about wildcard support for -pl, but Robert > >> didn't > >> > > > like > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > >>>> idea. > >> > > > > > >>>> I'm just thinking whether -pl foo/* might be something > that > >> > > could > >> > > > > help > >> > > > > > >>>> here as well, but it wouldn't be trivial to do, I > suppose. > >> > > > > > >>>> PS: -help doesn't mention ! at all. > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6511 > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> Cheers, > >> > > > > > >>>> Falko > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
