I just removed the dependency to JUnit in wicket-util. The licence mini-framework and XML well formed test are moved to wicket-util/src/test and all other projects have new dependency to wicket-util with scope 'test' and classifier 'tests'.
Now I think the only dependency in runtime to JUnit is for WicketTester in -core. But I believe this should not be a problem for OSGi because the dependency scope is 'provided', i.e. Maven doesn't bring it as transitive dependency but the user should provide it herself if she wants to use WicketTester at runtime (e.g. for email generation). Am I correct or there is something that I miss for OSGi needs ? On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > No, the plan is to provide an easy way to review patches. We do not want to > sidestep the asf here and we'll sqash the changes for simplicity and provide > them as patches attached to a jira issue once we decide that they are ready > > Kind regards Andreas > On Aug 17, 2011 9:10 AM, "Martin Grigorov" <[email protected]> wrote: >> As you know Wicket officially is still in Apache SVN. >> GitHub is a mirror of Apache's Git repo which is read-only. >> >> Pull Requests will make it easier for the (Git) users but then I have >> to extract the patch and apply it in SVN... >> If this step is easy to automate then it will be usable. >> >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Eelco Hillenius >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Did you guys consider working with pull requests on github? Works very >>> well in my experience. >>> >>> Eelco >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> Yes, that will create a patch of the whole branch, which is already > there. >>>> >>>> On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: >>>> >>>>> git diff myBranch..master > some.patch >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> can we have a patch that changes those places to use Args.*? :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -igor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just to provide some personal perspective and it's somewhat > off-topic... there's always a lot of things we can work around here (code > can always be compensated for with more code), but I think there is a > responsibility with all code to "leave it cleaner than you found it". To > say it differently, to me, any amount of effort today to keep things clean > is worth it, because tomorrow (with additional code thrown on), it may take > twice as long to undo it and we may not have options to work around the > problem any longer (thus forcing that we cannot avoid cleaning it up with > twice the investment). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I looked at the actual usages of JUnit, it was primarily on > junit.framework.Assert in about three or four random files, when in fact the > standing pattern is to use o.a.w.util.lang.Args or throw an > IllegalStateException if there is a problem with incomplete initialization. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In this case, removing JUnit as a dependency from util in fact > improves the code, and in the process does not bury a dependency even > deeper. In fact, there was a comment in one of the POMs alluding to the > question of why JUnit was a runtime dependency. I don't think I am alone in > believing that it should have been removed. This doesn't answer to > o.a.w.util.tester.WicketTester, but that's better answered in Martin's > email. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers and thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2011, at 2:44 AM, Andreas Pieber 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
