[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1159?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12867934#action_12867934
]
Ed Burcher commented on IVY-1159:
---------------------------------
Thanks for taking a look. However your assessment puzzles me. My understanding
of a resolver having force=true is that every revision in the ivy file is
treated as dynamic. That's certainly my reading of this extract from
http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/trunk/settings/resolvers.html#common
"
(under heading) Force
Any standard resolver can be used in force mode, which is used mainly to handle
local development builds. In force mode, the resolver attempts to find a
dependency whatever the requested revision is (internally it replace the
requested revision by 'latest.integration'), and if it finds one, it forces
this revision to be returned, even when used in a chain with returnFirst=false.
"
As such I'd expect to see dynamic-style behaviour on deliver in this case.
I'd also make the same argument by suggesting that it 'always makes sense' that
the deliver task writes a published ivy file that represents the resolution
that just took place. After all, the point about dynamic and static ivy files
is that the dynamic ones become static at the point where you want to fix the
revision identities (Because you want repeatable, unchanging, predictable
resolution behaviour for published artifacts). It would seem strange to me for
the resolve step to force resolution to some acceptable artifacts, but for ivy
not to allow a repeatable, static, resolve of the same in future by not
supporting generation of a delivered ivy file to represent what was resolved.
Even weirder would be if the deliver task produced an ivy file containing
static revisions that *may not even exist* (as in my test case) and certainly
were not the ones actually resolved.
> Resolved Ivy Properties written to cache during ivy:resolve incorrectly
> represents transitive evictions
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IVY-1159
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1159
> Project: Ivy
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: trunk
> Reporter: Ed Burcher
> Fix For: 2.2.0-RC1
>
> Attachments: IVY1159.tar.gz
>
>
> In ResolveEngine.resolve the code that writes the properties file appears to
> be incorrect.
> When the dependencies collection includes two or more entries for the same
> dependency (one from the root ivy file and the others being transitives), the
> properties file will always only ever be populated with the information from
> the IvyNode that belongs to the root ivy file (effectively the comment states
> this, so it certainly appears intentional).
> This produces the following bugs / undesirable effects:
> * incorrect delivered descriptor in some situations (where a dependency is
> both directly and transitively imported)
> * order of declaration of dependencies alters behaviour
> These are pretty major problems because (as demonstrated below) a
> delivered/published ivy descriptor can identify completely bogus revisions
> for the dynamic->static replacements, which are not to the actual revisions
> used when compiling etc
> Set up
> module *one* has no dependencies and has been published (as rev = 1, say)
> module *two* has a dependency on module one (only) and has been published (as
> rev = 1, also)
> module *three* has dependencies on both modules one and two and *lists them
> in the order two,one*
> In the module three descriptor the revisions mentioned for two and one do not
> actually exist (two=0 & one=0 say - repository only contains rev=1 of both)
> Ivy settings (attached) has a resolver that refers to a local repo, and has
> force=true and local=true set.
> Problem Case - use case: publishing module 3
> 1) ivy:resolve on module three, using refresh=true, transitive=true.
> Otherwise nothing special here.
> then
> 2) ivy:deliver (status=reelase, pubdate=now, deliverpattern supplied,
> pubrevision supplied (rev=1))
> 3) (lastly, the ivy:publish step woud happen here, but is not relevant to the
> problem)
> Expected outcome:
> Because the primary resolver has force=true, rev 1 of both module
> dependencies of 'three' should be selected [Because rev=1 publications are
> the only ones present in the repository] when resolving three's declared deps
> (both of which declare a dep on rev=0).
> Actual outcome:
> Delivered descriptor correctly names two as being resolved to rev=1.
> Incorrectly names module one as being resolved to rev=0 (which doesn't exist
> - and never has!)
> Workaround:
> Reverse the order of the declared dependencies in three's ivy descriptor (i.e
> new order is one, two) - problem does not occur.
> Diagnosis:
> Logs for resolve appear to show everything is fine (the eviction is noted,
> the generated report xml shows the declared direct dependency (one, rev=0)
> being evicted by the transitive dependency (one, rev=1 as declared in two's
> published ivy descriptor)
> However, debugging DeliverEngine.java and ResolveEngine.java - it is apparent
> that the 'resolved ivy properties file' is used to drive the replacement of
> dynamic revisions with static ones during deliver. In the error case, the
> properties file shows this:
> +revision\:\...@\#\:+0\:\...@\#\:+module\:\...@\#\:+one\: <snip> :=0 ?
> +revision\:\...@\#\:+0\:\...@\#\:+module\:\...@\#\:+two\: <snip> :=1 release
> The '?' is put there because the IvyNode that represented the direct
> dependency has no descriptor (correctly, because it has been evicted).
> Because the real selected revision is not put into the properties file, the
> ivy:deliver task is doomed to produce wrong results.
> The correct behaviour in this case would be for the EvictionInfo stored
> against the evicted IvyNode to be inspected to find the appropriate revision
> information. I have attached a pretty ugly example of how this could be
> achieved.
> Just before the comment ("The evicted modules have no description, so we
> can't put their status")
> {code}
> if (depDescriptor == null) {
> EvictionData ed = null;
> for (int j=0; j<confs.length && ed == null;
> j++) {
> ed = dependencies[i].getEvictedData(confs[j]);
> }
> if (ed != null) {
> Collection selected = ed.getSelected();
> if (selected != null) {
> if (selected.size() == 1) {
> IvyNode sel =
> (IvyNode)selected.iterator().next();
> depDescriptor = sel.getDescriptor();
> depResolvedId = sel.getResolvedId();
> if (depResolvedId == null) {
> throw new
> NullPointerException("getResolvedId() is null for (transitive) "
> + dependencies[i].toString());
> }
> rev = depResolvedId.getRevision();
> }
> else if (selected.size() > 1) {
> throw new RuntimeException("Unexpectedly
> large number of selecteds within eviction collection");
> }
> }
> }
> }
> {code}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
