Mirko, some remarks:IMO requireRole would mean that every developer/contributor requires at least one role.But the code checks if the used roles are allowed. So i'd prefer to rename those rules.Don't you want to log the offending contributer/developer? If some properties are required, I think you should verfy them first. So if AbstractRequireRoles.requiredRoles (actually allowedRoles) is empty or RequirePropertyDiverges.property is empty the rule should fail immediately. The RequirePropertyDiverges looks like a pretty flat rule, so I don't see why need those Xpp3Dom objects, but I could be wrong here. -Robert ps. I've already made some changes to the codeFrom: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:07:07 +0000 Subject: RE: [mojo-dev] New release of extra-enforcer-rules?
I'll try to have a look at it this week. Robert > From: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:02:36 +0200 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [mojo-dev] New release of extra-enforcer-rules? > > Hello, > > I have merged back my branch into the trunk which implements three new > rules for checking diverging properties from an ancestor project as > well as rules for checking certain roles for developers and > contributors are defined in a project. I have written unit tests as > well as invoker tests and am confident they should work. > > Are there any plans for releasing extra-enforcer-rules-1.0-alpha-3? > > Regards Mirko > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > >
