Hi Carsten,
My point for doing it early is that otherwise you might miss to detect 
formatting which destroys syntax (shouldn’t happen, but sometimes does)
But I also see the point for doing it later.

Just some references:
- This is how Apache Maven is doing it: 
https://github.com/apache/maven-parent/blob/ae7bfb185ddf730cb183968f10c5524a33edc14d/pom.xml#L1265
- Apache Avro: 
https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/8026c8ffe4ef67ab419dba73910636bf2c1a691c/lang/java/pom.xml#L307-L334

So do you want to propose a PR for parent?
Thanks,
Konrad


> On 27. Apr 2026, at 15:27, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, no I was not aware of this.
> 
> I am not sure if this is a good idea, getting the code I am working on 
> re-formatted just because I want to run the tests, is very confusing.
> 
> I guess this would be fine if done at a later state, after the tests - but 
> then I guess it doesnt fit the maven lifecycle.
> 
> And before someone mentions this :) I dont want to specify a 
> "-DDO_NOT_REFORMAT" everytime I am running maven
> 
> Regards
> Carsten
> 
> On 4/24/2026 1:18 PM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
>> are you aware of the latest change to the parent pom from konrad (not 
>> released yet) [1]
>> it autoformats the code if the build is run locally, so it should solve the 
>> problem altogether?
>> stefan
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-13125
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 8:46 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Moving spotless check to a later phase?
>>> 
>>> The spotless maven plugin as configured in the parent pom runs in a very
>>> early phase which makes it really annoying to work on code, especially
>>> fixing tests.
>>> Before the tests are run the spotless plugin complains about formatting
>>> issues.
>>> 
>>> Couldnt we move this to a later phase like verify?
>>> 
>>> Carsten
>>> --
>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>> Adobe
>>> [email protected]
> 
> -- 
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Adobe
> [email protected]
> 
> 

Reply via email to