Ok, so let's discuss this.
The idea is that instead of each project having to define the configuration for
the JAPICMP plugin, we pull the configuration out into the parent pom.
However, the situation is that there is a post-analysis script which is located
in different places depending on our sub-projects, e.g.:
* UIMA SDK: ${project.basedir}/../uimaj-parent/src/main/groovy/api-report.groovy
* uimaFIT :
${project.basedir}/../uimafit-parent/src/main/groovy/api-report.groovy
So we see here, that the script is in the module of the project-specific parent
POM.
That is why I introduced a property `japicmp.postAnalysisScript` that could be
set by sub-projects in order to tell the JAPICMP configuration in the UIMA
parent POM where to find the script.
> Another reason to avoid this change is that projects that used to
> intentionally
> inherit this value will now be "broken" and need fixing when they upgrade to
> this new version of the uima-wide pom.
Looking at the Parent POM 13, subprojects currently inherit a fully configured
JAPICMP plugin
configuration with the script-location hard-coded to the UIMA SDK location:
<plugin>
<groupId>com.github.siom79.japicmp</groupId>
<artifactId>japicmp-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>0.9.4</version>
<configuration>
<oldVersion>
<dependency>
<groupId>${project.groupId}</groupId>
<artifactId>${project.artifactId}</artifactId>
<version>${api_check_oldVersion}</version>
</dependency>
</oldVersion>
<parameter>
<onlyModified>true</onlyModified>
<!-- filter out classes with impl in their package or class
name -->
<postAnalysisScript>${project.basedir}/../uimaj-parent/src/main/groovy/api-report.groovy</postAnalysisScript>
</parameter>
</configuration>
<executions>
<execution>
<phase>verify</phase>
<goals>
<goal>cmp</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
That currently breaks the build for all other projects using the
`enforce-compatibility` profile (like uimaFIT).
> I thought that the common parent pom was for defaulting values, and these
> could
> always be overridden by specific projects.
Right. If a sub-project would provide its own configuration for the JAPICMP
plugin or set the `japicmp.postAnalysisScript` property.
> If many of the projects have a common value, wouldn't it make sense to
> abstract
> that to a singularly maintainable place?
Sure. I believe I hadn't thought as far at the time I worked on this change.
The best place might be the artifact which holds our other cross-project build
resources.
So if we moved the post-processing script to the build resources artifact, then
we could probably hardcode the location in the UIMA parent POM and wouldn't
need that `japicmp.postAnalysisScript` property at all.
WDYT?
Cheers,
-- Richard
