I am really not a fan of those -tests jars. I've seen maven struggle with them, and I definitely don't want wicket tester in -tests. that would be a -1 from me.
Martijn On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
