Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 15:03, Martin Kanters <martinkant...@apache.org> a écrit :
> 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, > Not really - but my example was maybe not perfect :s - it works only in the case you enter images folder but typically, as almost mentionned ;) - this is often used for images + assemblies (2 submodule trees) and it works today, if I add -N it will not work anymore and I can't do -pl parent -plN '!parent' so I'm still blocked or do you see a way to make current behavior working as expected? Or do you mean if I use -pl -xxx I can't use -pl yyy anymore (both became exclusive which would be another blocker for me). > 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 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
