Hello Robert, thanks for your help. I will give it a try tomorrow :-).
Regards Mirko On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 22:35, Robert Scholte <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mirko, > > I think we're good to go. > Do you want to pick up this release? > > -Robert >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:29:01 +0200 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] New release of extra-enforcer-rules? > >> >> Hi Mirko, >> >> it looks to me the name of the rule is wrong with your described >> intension. >> RequireContributorRoles would mean that a contributor requires a role >> The role isn't mandatory, so I think you shouldn't use Required as prefix, >> but maybe AllowedContributorRoles. >> >> I assumed that contributors and developers are different object, but now I >> see >> public class Developer extends Contributor >> That part could be reverted, although it looks a bit weird. >> >> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:13:51 +0200, Mirko Friedenhagen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hello Robert, >> > >> > a) maybe the intentions of RequireContributorRoles and >> > RequireDeveloperRoles are not clear: >> > >> > - I did not want every developer or contributor to *have a role*, but >> > that certain roles are taken in a project, so the code checks that at >> > least one of the developers/contributors in a project has one of the >> > required roles. Say you always want to have someone to be the >> > "business engineer" in a project, so you define that this role is >> > taken at least by one of the contributors. So I changed the error >> > message to be: >> > "Found no %s representing role(s) '%s'", "developer|contributor", >> > rolesFromProperties >> > - Why did you pull down the getRolesFromProject method? It is >> > identical in both RequireContributorRoles and RequireDeveloperRoles >> > except of the input list :-). >> > >> > >> > b) In regards to RequirePropertyDiverges: I choose to compare against >> > a Xpp3Dom as plugins.get( MAVEN_ENFORCER_PLUGIN ).getConfiguration() >> > returns a Xpp3Dom which I otherwise would have had to parse again. >> > >> > >> > c) Unless someone wanted to extend the new rules, I like to minimize >> > visibility therefore I normally prefer the default (package) scope >> > instead of protected. This allows to write unit tests easily without >> > widening the API. >> > >> > Regards Mirko >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 23:00, Robert Scholte <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> 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 code >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [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 >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> > >> > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
