Le mardi 27 novembre 2012 21:45:16 Benson Margulies a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: > > I had a second thought about aggregate reporting plugins (or more > > precisely > > goal). > > > > Since some time, we're applying a new pattern where there is a separate > > reporting goal for aggregate (previously, aggregate was a parameter). > > In the maven parent pom, we're explicitely setting a reportSet > > configuration for m-javadoc-p, which is the first plugin implementing > > this pattern IIRC. But for other plugins, we don't define reportSets: > > then by default, every reporting goals are used, ie aggregate and > > non-aggregate. > > > > Now I understand why I'm experiencing twice PMD or Checkstyle runs in > > components lately... > > Now there's no use of the aggregate reportSet. If we wanted > aggregation, how would we write it do happen in the right place? you can look at Maven core's pom.xml, which defines aggregated reports for javadoc
notice: 1. this pom actually defines "non-aggregate" reportSets, which duplicates the "default" reportSets: I'm waiting for Git rw to remove them 2. aggregate reportSets are marked <inherit>false</inherit> to avoid being run in child modules, which is a good practice to give to users 3. AFAIK, this is not well documented in m-site-p (is it even documented in another place than pom descriptor [1]?): now that I think I understand well, I should be able to write something, probably in [2] , but any help appreciated Regards, Hervé [1] http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1-SNAPSHOT/maven- model/maven.html#class_reportSet [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-site-plugin/examples/configuring- reports.html > > > I just created MPOM-39 for tracking this issue. > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPOM-39 > > > > Le lundi 19 novembre 2012 20:50:07 Dennis Lundberg a écrit : > >> Hi > >> > >> Yes, most likely. There are a bunch of JIRAs for the Site Plugin about > >> issues like the one you're experiencing. The two things that stands out > >> from memory are: > >> > >> - aggregate reporting plugins (like Javadoc in your example) > >> - using the "new" way of configuring reporting plugins, i.e. under the > >> Site Plugin's configuration> element > >> > >> I try to stay away from both if I can... > >> > >> On 2012-11-19 14:31, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> > Or is this the real villan: > >> > > >> > [DEBUG] Lifecycle site -> [pre-site, site, post-site, site-deploy] > >> > [INFO] > >> > [INFO] >>> maven-javadoc-plugin:2.9:aggregate (report:aggregate) @ > >> > accumulo >>> [INFO] > >> > [INFO] > >> > > >> > [INFO] Forking accumulo 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT > >> > [INFO] > >> > > >> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Benson Margulies > >> > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > >> >> Does the below show the enforcer plugin, of all things, forking? > >> >> > >> >> [DEBUG] Configuring mojo > >> >> 'org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin:1.0.1:enforce' with > >> >> basic configurator --> > >> >> [DEBUG] (s) fail = true > >> >> [DEBUG] (s) failFast = false > >> >> [DEBUG] (f) ignoreCache = false > >> >> [DEBUG] (s) project = MavenProject: > >> >> org.apache.accumulo:accumulo:1.5.0-SNAPSHOT @ > >> >> /Users/benson/asf/accumulo/pom.xml > >> >> [DEBUG] (s) version = [2.2.0,) > >> >> [DEBUG] (s) rules = > >> >> [org.apache.maven.plugins.enforcer.RequireMavenVersion@42c31c7d] > >> >> [DEBUG] (s) session = > >> >> org.apache.maven.execution.MavenSession@409bad4f > >> >> [DEBUG] (s) skip = false > >> >> [DEBUG] -- end configuration -- > >> >> [DEBUG] Executing rule: > >> >> org.apache.maven.plugins.enforcer.RequireMavenVersion [DEBUG] Rule > >> >> org.apache.maven.plugins.enforcer.RequireMavenVersion is cacheable. > >> >> [DEBUG] Detected Maven Version: 3.0.4 > >> >> [DEBUG] Detected Maven Version: 3.0.4 is allowed in the range > >> >> [2.2.0,). > >> >> [INFO] > >> >> [INFO] > >> >> > >> >> [INFO] Forking cloudtrace 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT > >> >> [INFO] > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Barrie Treloar <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > >> >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Benson Margulies > >> >>> > >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>> Barrie, I understand this much, but what I don't understand is what > >> >>>> to > >> >>>> do about it. Is there any choice other than to stop using reporting > >> >>>> plugins that do the forking? Or can I put the executions of them > >> >>>> ahead > >> >>>> of site:site on the command line or something? > >> >>> > >> >>> I think the technical term is SOL. > >> >>> Unless there is a "no-fork" variant of the goal. > >> >>> > >> >>> I've only noticed this to be a problem more recently so I haven't had > >> >>> the time to give it much more thought. > >> >>> The knee jerk reaction is that "fork" should be deprecated and > >> >>> replaced with an alternative model. > >> >>> > >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
