[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13650639#comment-13650639
]
Vitaliy Sapounov commented on IVY-1422:
---------------------------------------
The question is, therefore, why the
{code}parent.getResolvedId().equals(dd.getParentRevisionId()){code} check is
necessary? Naive way of fixing that would be to remove the check (that is most
likely incorrect) OR, when merging dependencies from base module, change its
parent module ID to extended OR do an additional check in
LatestConflictManager, something like
{code}parent.getResolvedId().equals(dd.getParentRevisionId()) ||
parent.getResolvedId() ~extends~ dd.getParentRevisionId(){code}
> 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):
> {code:xml}
> <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>
> {code}
> 2) There is an extending module that also includes our library "mylib":
> {code:xml}
> <ivy-module>
> <info organisation="com.mycompany" module="extending" revision="trunk">
> <extends organisation="com.mycompany" module="base" revision="trunk"/>
> </info>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency org="com.mycompany" name="mylib" rev="trunk"/>
> </dependencies>
> </ivy-module>
> {code}
> 3) Finally, our library "mylib" also depends on "vendorlib", revision 2.0
> (i.e. there is another dependency on "vendorlib" with another revision):
> {code:xml}
> <ivy-module>
> <info organisation="com.mycompany" module="mylib" revision="trunk"/>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency org="com.vendor" name="vendorlib" rev="2.0"/>
> </dependencies>
> </ivy-module>
> {code}
> 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
