[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Vitaliy Sapounov updated IVY-1422:
----------------------------------
Description:
*ENVIRONMENT:*
We have a project that uses several Ivy modules:
1) There is a base module that declares dependency on "vendorlib", revision
1.0, with "force" attribute (the whole purpose of the module is to guarantee
the "vendorlib" revision):
{{
<ivy-module>
<info organisation="com.mycompany" module="base" revision="trunk"/>
<dependencies>
<dependency org="com.vendor" name="vendorlib" rev="1.0" force="true"/>
</dependencies>
</ivy-module>
}}
2) There is an extending module that extends the base and includes our library
"mylib":
<ivy-module>
<info organisation="com.mycompany" module="extending" revision="trunk">
<extends organisation="com.test" module="base" revision="trunk"/>
</info>
<dependencies>
<dependency org="com.mycompany" name="mylib" rev="trunk"/>
</dependencies>
</ivy-module>
3) Finally, our library "mylib" also depends on "vendorlib", revision 2.0 (i.e.
there is another dependency on "vendorlib" with revision 2.0):
<ivy-module>
<info organisation="com.mycompany" module="mylib" revision="trunk"/>
<dependencies>
<dependency org="com.vendor" name="vendorlib" rev="2.0"/>
</dependencies>
</ivy-module>
4) We use "latest-revision" conflict manager in ivysettings.xml.
***** PROBLEM:
Despite the "force" attribute in base module for "vendorlib", latest revision
(2.0) of "vendorlib" is selected by the conflict manager for the extended
module.
***** ROOT CAUSE:
LatestConflictManager.java has the following code:
public Collection resolveConflicts(IvyNode parent, Collection conflicts) {
if (conflicts.size() < 2) {
return conflicts;
}
for (Iterator iter = conflicts.iterator(); iter.hasNext();) {
IvyNode node = (IvyNode) iter.next();
DependencyDescriptor dd = node.getDependencyDescriptor(parent);
if (dd != null && dd.isForce()
>>>>>>>>> &&
>>>>>>>>> parent.getResolvedId().equals(dd.getParentRevisionId())) {
return Collections.singleton(node);
}
}
Note ">>>>" line: since "vendorlib" with "force" attribute comes from the base
module, dd.getParentRevisionId() returns "com.mycompany#base;trunk", but
parent.getResolvedId() returns "com.mycompany#extended;trunk", thus the last
comparison returns "false" and "force" is lost.
If we move dependency with "force" to the extended module, it will work.
***** REAL-LIFE APPLICABILITY:
We use the "base" module as a template that fixes versions of libraries
provided by the J2EE application server we use. Based on that template, we
create a number of extending web applications that guarantee to use the libs
that the application server provides. (The actual use case is slightly more
complicated, as e.g. "mylib" declares dependency on "vendorlib" version range
it supports, e.g. "[2.0,5.7]" range.)
was:
***** ENVIRONMENT:
We have a project that uses several Ivy modules:
1) There is a base module that declares dependency on "vendorlib", revision
1.0, with "force" attribute (the whole purpose of the module is to guarantee
the "vendorlib" revision):
<ivy-module>
<info organisation="com.mycompany" module="base" revision="trunk"/>
<dependencies>
<dependency org="com.vendor" name="vendorlib" rev="1.0" force="true"/>
</dependencies>
</ivy-module>
2) There is an extending module that extends the base and includes our library
"mylib":
<ivy-module>
<info organisation="com.mycompany" module="extending" revision="trunk">
<extends organisation="com.test" module="base" revision="trunk"/>
</info>
<dependencies>
<dependency org="com.mycompany" name="mylib" rev="trunk"/>
</dependencies>
</ivy-module>
3) Finally, our library "mylib" also depends on "vendorlib", revision 2.0 (i.e.
there is another dependency on "vendorlib" with revision 2.0):
<ivy-module>
<info organisation="com.mycompany" module="mylib" revision="trunk"/>
<dependencies>
<dependency org="com.vendor" name="vendorlib" rev="2.0"/>
</dependencies>
</ivy-module>
4) We use "latest-revision" conflict manager in ivysettings.xml.
***** PROBLEM:
Despite the "force" attribute in base module for "vendorlib", latest revision
(2.0) of "vendorlib" is selected by the conflict manager for the extended
module.
***** ROOT CAUSE:
LatestConflictManager.java has the following code:
public Collection resolveConflicts(IvyNode parent, Collection conflicts) {
if (conflicts.size() < 2) {
return conflicts;
}
for (Iterator iter = conflicts.iterator(); iter.hasNext();) {
IvyNode node = (IvyNode) iter.next();
DependencyDescriptor dd = node.getDependencyDescriptor(parent);
if (dd != null && dd.isForce()
>>>>>>>>> &&
>>>>>>>>> parent.getResolvedId().equals(dd.getParentRevisionId())) {
return Collections.singleton(node);
}
}
Note ">>>>" line: since "vendorlib" with "force" attribute comes from the base
module, dd.getParentRevisionId() returns "com.mycompany#base;trunk", but
parent.getResolvedId() returns "com.mycompany#extended;trunk", thus the last
comparison returns "false" and "force" is lost.
If we move dependency with "force" to the extended module, it will work.
***** REAL-LIFE APPLICABILITY:
We use the "base" module as a template that fixes versions of libraries
provided by the J2EE application server we use. Based on that template, we
create a number of extending web applications that guarantee to use the libs
that the application server provides. (The actual use case is slightly more
complicated, as e.g. "mylib" declares dependency on "vendorlib" version range
it supports, e.g. "[2.0,5.7]" range.)
> Dependency "force" does not work if comes from extended module
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IVY-1422
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1422
> Project: Ivy
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: 2.3.0
> Reporter: Vitaliy Sapounov
>
> *ENVIRONMENT:*
> We have a project that uses several Ivy modules:
> 1) There is a base module that declares dependency on "vendorlib", revision
> 1.0, with "force" attribute (the whole purpose of the module is to guarantee
> the "vendorlib" revision):
> {{
> <ivy-module>
> <info organisation="com.mycompany" module="base" revision="trunk"/>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency org="com.vendor" name="vendorlib" rev="1.0" force="true"/>
> </dependencies>
> </ivy-module>
> }}
> 2) There is an extending module that extends the base and includes our
> library "mylib":
> <ivy-module>
> <info organisation="com.mycompany" module="extending" revision="trunk">
> <extends organisation="com.test" module="base" revision="trunk"/>
> </info>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency org="com.mycompany" name="mylib" rev="trunk"/>
> </dependencies>
> </ivy-module>
> 3) Finally, our library "mylib" also depends on "vendorlib", revision 2.0
> (i.e. there is another dependency on "vendorlib" with revision 2.0):
> <ivy-module>
> <info organisation="com.mycompany" module="mylib" revision="trunk"/>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency org="com.vendor" name="vendorlib" rev="2.0"/>
> </dependencies>
> </ivy-module>
> 4) We use "latest-revision" conflict manager in ivysettings.xml.
> ***** PROBLEM:
> Despite the "force" attribute in base module for "vendorlib", latest revision
> (2.0) of "vendorlib" is selected by the conflict manager for the extended
> module.
> ***** ROOT CAUSE:
> LatestConflictManager.java has the following code:
> public Collection resolveConflicts(IvyNode parent, Collection conflicts) {
> if (conflicts.size() < 2) {
> return conflicts;
> }
> for (Iterator iter = conflicts.iterator(); iter.hasNext();) {
> IvyNode node = (IvyNode) iter.next();
> DependencyDescriptor dd = node.getDependencyDescriptor(parent);
> if (dd != null && dd.isForce()
> >>>>>>>>> &&
> >>>>>>>>> parent.getResolvedId().equals(dd.getParentRevisionId())) {
> return Collections.singleton(node);
> }
> }
> Note ">>>>" line: since "vendorlib" with "force" attribute comes from the
> base module, dd.getParentRevisionId() returns "com.mycompany#base;trunk", but
> parent.getResolvedId() returns "com.mycompany#extended;trunk", thus the last
> comparison returns "false" and "force" is lost.
> If we move dependency with "force" to the extended module, it will work.
> ***** REAL-LIFE APPLICABILITY:
> We use the "base" module as a template that fixes versions of libraries
> provided by the J2EE application server we use. Based on that template, we
> create a number of extending web applications that guarantee to use the libs
> that the application server provides. (The actual use case is slightly more
> complicated, as e.g. "mylib" declares dependency on "vendorlib" version range
> it supports, e.g. "[2.0,5.7]" range.)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
