Is it possible to configure the plugin to fail on unknown files ?
E.g. currently it excludes 'target/' folder and checks files with
extensions .java, .xml, .html, .properties, .js, .css and .vm. Is it
possible to add some global excludes for images and configure it to
fail the verification if an unknown file is found. I.e. if there is
src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/SomeFile.blah and it is not explicitly
excluded then fail
Additionally can you add some comments around why some resources are excluded ?
I just saw wicket-core/pom.xml has:
<plugin>
83
+ <groupId>com.mycila.maven-license-plugin</groupId>
84
+ <artifactId>maven-license-plugin</artifactId>
85
+ <configuration>
86
+
<header>${project.parent.basedir}/licenses/asf-license-header.txt</header>
87
+ <excludes>
88
+ <exclude>src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/**/*.properties</exclude>
and I wonder why line 88 is there.
I know current JUnit based tests also have some exclusions but I'm not
sure whether they have explanation "why".
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The change at
> https://github.com/topping/wicket/commit/8f08c2082f90fcd54a7e4734b892d13e610a47bf
> looks OK to me but I'm not quite familiar with the unit test based
> solution (the current one). I'm not sure whether there are some
> (unknown for me) rules like specific formatting which may become
> broken now.
>
> I guess Andreas' solution will be needed at least for wicket-core
> because as I said (Base)WicketTester depends on JUnit - both compile
> and runtime.
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I just want to jump in here. While I think it a good idea to check license
>> headers via a plugin instead of a junit tests this is not a "no-go" for the
>> osgification. There are various libs out there importing org.junit... in the
>> compile phase instead of the test-phase (although not required). At
>> Servicemix such libs are typically wrapped using the ;optional:=true
>> attribute. Since junit is not required at runtime I think we can go the same
>> way for wicket here.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 22:24, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys, thanks for the responses. The repository issue (as well as an
>>> unknown about outside plugins) was a concern, part of why I started a custom
>>> plugin. But if folks are comfortable with it, I think it's the right way to
>>> go. It's used in Brix and it's been very robust and convenient.
>>>
>>> I created a branch at
>>> https://github.com/topping/wicket/tree/myclila-plugin containing the
>>> changes. There are a lot of them and it took most of the day to get it
>>> right. The plugin expects the license header to be formatted slightly
>>> differently (for instance using "/**" instead of "/*" to start a Java
>>> header). Their site suggests using <aggregation>, but that results in all
>>> the configuration being in the parent POM, something that isn't very good
>>> encapsulation of configuration. So I broke it out between projects so it's
>>> easier to maintain.
>>>
>>> As for the specific excludes, I may not have precisely the same excludes
>>> that the old test cases had. I started by copying them to the best of my
>>> perception, then tuned them for the tests (which seems to be the most
>>> sensitive aspect). Can anyone review the patch to see if there are any
>>> obvious mistakes?
>>>
>>> If not, it would be very helpful for the OSGi effort if we could get this
>>> patch applied. Removing the dependency on JUnit from wicket-util is pretty
>>> important to the effort, and I think this provides benefits to the project
>>> moving forward as well.
>>>
>>> Please let me know what I can do to facilitate.
>>>
>>> Kind regards, Brian
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:05 AM, jcgarciam wrote:
>>>
>>> > The problem with com.mycila.maven-license-plugin:maven-license-plugin
>>> > as far as i remember is that is not yet published in central maven
>>> > repository, so it cannot be used without adding their repo. in the
>>> pom.xml
>>> > which is a problem if you are trying to get your project deployed in OSS
>>> > Sonatype.
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Martin Grigorov-4 [via Apache Wicket] <
>>> > [email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Brian,
>>> >>
>>> >> The main user of JUnit in production is WicketTester.
>>> >>
>>> >> About ApacheLicenceTest - Jeremy tried to replace it with
>>> >> com.mycila.maven-license-plugin:maven-license-plugin in 1.4.x but
>>> >> didn't finish it.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Brian Topping <[hidden email]<
>>> http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3742539&i=0>>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> oic, there's a ApacheLicenseHeaderTest in every project.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm in the process of isolating the junit.framework package to a test
>>> >> dependency so JUnit is not a dependency in production code. If it were
>>> made
>>> >> into a plugin, the instances of per-project ApacheLicenseHeader
>>> >> configuration would need to come from the POM. That's kind of where it
>>> >> belongs (it's part of the build, after all), but it could easily be made
>>> >> into a configuration file that resides in each project to keep the POMs
>>> >> clean.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Failing that, creating a separate module to contain o.a.w.util.license
>>> >> that is a test scope dependency would be a last resort.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm going to go ahead and create a plugin that reads a configuration
>>> file
>>> >> in each project. Some of the configurations are lengthy
>>> >> (org.apache.wicket.util.license.ApacheLicenceHeaderTest). That would be
>>> a
>>> >> mess in the pom.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Brian Topping wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Hi all,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Does anyone know why org.apache.wicket.util.license is in
>>> wicket-util's
>>> >> production source directory? I'm guessing it has something to do with
>>> the
>>> >> desire to get the license plugin to fire every time a build is made, but
>>> if
>>> >> that's the case, it would be better handled as a Maven plugin. It's not
>>> a
>>> >> test and it's not a part of any public API.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I'm happy to create a plugin if that's the case, please let me know.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Cheers, Brian
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Martin Grigorov
>>> >> jWeekend
>>> >> Training, Consulting, Development
>>> >> http://jWeekend.com
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ------------------------------
>>> >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>>> >> below:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/o-a-w-util-license-package-in-production-source-folder-tp3742291p3742539.html
>>> >> To start a new topic under Apache Wicket, email
>>> >> [email protected]
>>> >> To unsubscribe from Apache Wicket, click here<
>>> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=1842946&code=amNnYXJjaWFtQGdtYWlsLmNvbXwxODQyOTQ2fDEyNTYxMzc3ODY=
>>> >.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > JC
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > View this message in context:
>>> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/o-a-w-util-license-package-in-production-source-folder-tp3742291p3742824.html
>>> > Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at
>>> Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.com
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
