Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Stephen Connolly]

On Sun 19 Mar 2017 at 02:58, Christian Schulte  wrote:

> Branch name is MNG-6182
>
> <
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/MNG-6182
> >
>
> Commit is
>
> <
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commit;h=4fc5e2180b3f230740778b7106b79c5a9cf8619f
> >


Brief look on my phone says that's ok

Will review more closely later


>
> Should I create a separate JIRA issue for this?
>

No need, tests are for the feature and we should not be adding features
without testing


> Regards,
> --
> Christian
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> --
Sent from my phone

Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Christian Schulte]

Branch name is MNG-6182



Commit is



Should I create a separate JIRA issue for this?

Regards,
-- 
Christian


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Stephen Connolly]

On Sat 18 Mar 2017 at 21:58, Christian Schulte  wrote:

> Am 03/18/17 um 14:04 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > Given that these new methods actually have implementations, could we see
> > about having at least a unit test of the new code - since it will not be
> > covered by any test.
>
> There would be an integration test for the code. Since nothing uses it,
> no way to add anything to the ITs.
>
> >
> > If we have no test and no usage, then we could realistically replace the
> > implementations with `throw new UnsupportedOperationsException("Not
> > implemented yet");` which would defeat the claimed purpose on the JIRA of
> > making this code available to IDE integrators.
>
> Throwing an UnsupportedOperationException would be an option. Reverting
> the commit also would be an option.
>
> > So I think to make "live" code available, we need at least a sanity check
> > of the new code with a unit test or two... nothing fancy.
>
> Just tell me what I should do.
>
> a) revert the commit and postpone to 3.6.0.
> b) remove the implementation and throw an UnsupportedOperationExceptio


Can you write a unit test (perhaps with mocks) showing that it does
effectively the same as the variant taking Project)?

That'd be good enough for 3.5.0


>
> I do not know how the public Maven API has been versioned in the past.
> The method will be needed to add support for dependency management
> *import* version ranges to the model builder. If we would add this in
> 3.5.1, we would add methods to an interface of Maven's public API in a
> patch release. No one would expect this to happen. We have done this in
> the past. Just take a look at the history of the 'ModelResolver'
> interface. This is something we should try to avoid to happen as much as
> possible.


We do not claim to be following semver.

Semver is not great for a large multi-component system.

If you have a small library, semver makes sense... there is a single
component and people are just consumers of the API so breaking changes are
important.

Now Maven is a build tool chain... we have different classes of consumer:

* users who interact via the pom
* plugin authors who interact via the plugin api
* ide integrators who interact via a different api
* 3rd parties consuming some of core as libraries
* etc

Changes will be "breaking" for some consumers and not for others.

We cannot be "semver" for all those consumers otherwise we would be on
Maven 375.0.0

If we are even close to semver it will. E for the biggest group of
consumers: i.e. Our users.

If we change the dependency resolution in a backwards incompatible way such
that their existing pom will not build... they want to know about it.

So where we are semver-like is the version number we give *to the users*

Everyone else are considered to be a smaller set of people that have to
just suck it up and read the release notes.

So if we are adding a new method to help ide integrators in 3.5.1... whoop
de doo. The user's don't care about that enough to bump it to 4.0.0 (yep
adding a method to an interface pre Java 8 is a *breaking change* if strict
semver we'd have to go to 4.0.0... I told you we weren't strict semver)


>
> Regards,
> --
> Christian
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> --
Sent from my phone

Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Christian Schulte]

Am 03/18/17 um 14:04 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> Given that these new methods actually have implementations, could we see
> about having at least a unit test of the new code - since it will not be
> covered by any test.

There would be an integration test for the code. Since nothing uses it,
no way to add anything to the ITs.

> 
> If we have no test and no usage, then we could realistically replace the
> implementations with `throw new UnsupportedOperationsException("Not
> implemented yet");` which would defeat the claimed purpose on the JIRA of
> making this code available to IDE integrators.

Throwing an UnsupportedOperationException would be an option. Reverting
the commit also would be an option.

> So I think to make "live" code available, we need at least a sanity check
> of the new code with a unit test or two... nothing fancy.

Just tell me what I should do.

a) revert the commit and postpone to 3.6.0.
b) remove the implementation and throw an UnsupportedOperationException

I do not know how the public Maven API has been versioned in the past.
The method will be needed to add support for dependency management
*import* version ranges to the model builder. If we would add this in
3.5.1, we would add methods to an interface of Maven's public API in a
patch release. No one would expect this to happen. We have done this in
the past. Just take a look at the history of the 'ModelResolver'
interface. This is something we should try to avoid to happen as much as
possible.

Regards,
-- 
Christian


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Stephen Connolly]

Given that these new methods actually have implementations, could we see
about having at least a unit test of the new code - since it will not be
covered by any test.

If we have no test and no usage, then we could realistically replace the
implementations with `throw new UnsupportedOperationsException("Not
implemented yet");` which would defeat the claimed purpose on the JIRA of
making this code available to IDE integrators.

So I think to make "live" code available, we need at least a sanity check
of the new code with a unit test or two... nothing fancy.

On 12 March 2017 at 16:32,  wrote:

> [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.
>
>
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/repo
> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/commit/ab800b0c
> Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/tree/ab800b0c
> Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/diff/ab800b0c
>
> Branch: refs/heads/MNG-6169
> Commit: ab800b0cfae4e3ca9453304e3b9727ba4a4b712b
> Parents: 114ef6c
> Author: Christian Schulte 
> Authored: Sat Jan 30 19:17:34 2016 +0100
> Committer: Christian Schulte 
> Committed: Wed Mar 8 18:24:18 2017 +0100
>
> --
>  .../maven/project/ProjectModelResolver.java | 84 +++
>  .../maven/model/resolution/ModelResolver.java   | 32 
>  .../internal/DefaultModelResolver.java  | 85 
>  3 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> --
>
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/blob/ab800b0c/
> maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/
> ProjectModelResolver.java
> --
> diff --git 
> a/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/ProjectModelResolver.java
> b/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/
> ProjectModelResolver.java
> index 7b93217..3a31d33 100644
> --- a/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/
> ProjectModelResolver.java
> +++ b/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/
> ProjectModelResolver.java
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ import java.util.Set;
>
>  import com.google.common.base.Predicate;
>  import com.google.common.collect.Iterables;
> -
> +import org.apache.maven.model.Dependency;
>  import org.apache.maven.model.Parent;
>  import org.apache.maven.model.Repository;
>  import org.apache.maven.model.building.FileModelSource;
> @@ -203,24 +203,26 @@ public class ProjectModelResolver
>  return new FileModelSource( pomFile );
>  }
>
> -public ModelSource resolveModel( Parent parent )
> +@Override
> +public ModelSource resolveModel( final Parent parent )
>  throws UnresolvableModelException
>  {
> -Artifact artifact = new DefaultArtifact( parent.getGroupId(),
> parent.getArtifactId(), "", "pom",
> - parent.getVersion() );
> -
> -VersionRangeRequest versionRangeRequest = new
> VersionRangeRequest( artifact, repositories, context );
> -versionRangeRequest.setTrace( trace );
> -
>  try
>  {
> -VersionRangeResult versionRangeResult =
> resolver.resolveVersionRange( session, versionRangeRequest );
> +final Artifact artifact = new DefaultArtifact(
> parent.getGroupId(), parent.getArtifactId(), "", "pom",
> +
>  parent.getVersion() );
> +
> +final VersionRangeRequest versionRangeRequest = new
> VersionRangeRequest( artifact, repositories, context );
> +versionRangeRequest.setTrace( trace );
> +
> +final VersionRangeResult versionRangeResult =
> resolver.resolveVersionRange( session, versionRangeRequest );
>
>  if ( versionRangeResult.getHighestVersion() == null )
>  {
> -throw new UnresolvableModelException( "No versions
> matched the requested range '" + parent.getVersion()
> -  + "'",
> parent.getGroupId(), parent.getArtifactId(),
> -  parent.getVersion()
> );
> +throw new UnresolvableModelException(
> +String.format( "No versions matched the requested
> parent version range '%s'",
> +   parent.getVersion() ),
> +parent.getGroupId(), parent.getArtifactId(),
> parent.getVersion() );
>
>  }
>
> @@ -229,21 +231,69 @@ public class ProjectModelResolver
>   && 
> versionRangeResult.getVersionConstraint().getRange().getUpperBound()
> == null )
>  {
>  // Message below is checked for in the MNG-2199 core IT.
> -throw new UnresolvableModelException( "The requested
> version range '" + parent.getVersion()
> - 

Re: maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Stephen Connolly]

Christian you need to be proactive and sort this out...

FTR as release manager for Maven core 3.5.0 I have an easy answer to any
decisions asked of me: my answer is Out! For example, If there is a S1/S2
bug in coloured logging, then either it gets fixed promptly or it is out. I
will be brutal to get 3.5.0 shipped. If there is controversy, the easiest
way to consensus is to delay the controversy and leave it out.

More seriously if the changes post 3.5.0 mean that we don't call it 3.5.1
rather call it 3.6.0, that's fine. I will not let conflict stand in the way
of getting 3.5.0 released.

Now to the case in point: Shipping a broken api in 3.5.0 sounds like S1 for
that api change, i.e. Feature does not work at all. So I advise treading
carefully.

Version numbers are just version numbers.

-Stephen

On Fri 10 Mar 2017 at 22:47, Christian Schulte  wrote:

> Am 03/10/17 um 23:33 schrieb Christian Schulte:
> > Am 03/10/17 um 20:16 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:47:45 +0100, Christian Schulte 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 03/10/17 um 10:42 schrieb Robert Scholte:
>  Having a closer look at this commit, I actually don't like the idea
> that
>  ModelResolver now supports versionRanges.
>  IMO the version should always be specific *before* resolving the
> model.
>  IIUC correctly this is required to supported version-ranges for
> managed
>  dependencies, and that is also something I wonder if we want that.
> 
>  Please let us reconsider this commit.
> >>>
> >>> You do notice the parent resolution is part of that interface since
> >>> Maven 3.2.2? I just added the same logic for dependencies to support
> >>> version ranges in dependency management import declarations. Version
> >>> ranges are supported everywhere but dependency management _import_
> >>> declarations. We already agreed that this is a bug fix and this would
> >>> have been part of Maven 3.4.0, if we would not have dropped it due to
> >>> the resolver changes. MNG-4463 has been reported in JIRA 23/Nov/09
> >>> 09:39! It's tiresome to discuss things committed in 2014 now. See the
> >>> 'ModelResolver' interface from Maven 3.2.2. It already contains that
> >>> logic for 'Parent' model objects.
> >>>
> >>> <
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commitdiff;h=045bd1503b70738ffd0fa08e336574107aded801
> >
> >>>
> >>> The new method in 3.5.0 for 'Dependency' model objects will only be
> used
> >>> to support version ranges in dependency management _import_
> declarations
> >>> coming in 3.5.1.
> >>>
> >>> <
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commit;h=d0911ac57dccb758435cdfd3495121ec9f0ae1b4
> >
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>
> >> MNG-4463 is marked for 3.5.1, not for 3.5.0, so this would *not* the the
> >> moment to commit it.
> >
> > Did you read the description of MNG-6182? There is a good reason not to
> > enhance a public API in a patch release. Just take a look at the history
> > of the ModelResolver interface. It changed in incompatible ways between
> > releases. I'd like this to be stable again in the next feature release.
> > That is 3.5.0 - not 3.5.1. That interface is just an adapter (the
> > maven-model-builder module does not depend on the resolver). I would not
> > want to add yet another adapter interface instead of enhancing the
> > existing one. It's *the* moment to commit this. That's why I added a
> > method not used by anything at the moment. Maven 3.5.0 still is a
> > drop-in replacement that way. No one needs to update an implementation.
> > This will change as soon as something starts to call the new method in
> > 3.5.1, of course. Just as we add dependencies to Maven 3.0.0 in the
> > plugins ourselves instead of - say - Maven 3.3.9, I'd like others to be
> > able to depend on Maven 3.5.0 to compile against that API instead of
> > 3.5.x. I am repeating the description of MNG-6182 already. I know the
> > Netbeans IDE is implementing the ModelResolver interface. No one would
> > expect that interface to change between 3.5.0 and 3.5.1 in a way that
> > you get a compile time error when compiling against 3.5.1 instead of
> 3.5.0.
> >
> >>
> >> Let's first push 3.5.0 and give everybody the change to dive into the
> >> complexity of dependency resolution once we start with 3.5.1
> >
> > What complexity are you talking about? Someone using version ranges in a
> > dependency management import declaration will not do this without
> > intention. Maven currently fails the build with an error message. Just
> > like mentioned in the description of MNG-4463. No one expects a public
> > API to be enhanced between 3.5.0 and 3.5.1. Are we really discussing the
> > addition of a new method *not used anywhere*? When in doubt, we should
> > start a vote on this.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
>
> And for the very same reason I am currently reviewing this commit
>
> <
> 

Re: maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Christian Schulte]

Am 03/10/17 um 23:33 schrieb Christian Schulte:
> Am 03/10/17 um 20:16 schrieb Robert Scholte:
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:47:45 +0100, Christian Schulte   
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 03/10/17 um 10:42 schrieb Robert Scholte:
 Having a closer look at this commit, I actually don't like the idea that
 ModelResolver now supports versionRanges.
 IMO the version should always be specific *before* resolving the model.
 IIUC correctly this is required to supported version-ranges for managed
 dependencies, and that is also something I wonder if we want that.

 Please let us reconsider this commit.
>>>
>>> You do notice the parent resolution is part of that interface since
>>> Maven 3.2.2? I just added the same logic for dependencies to support
>>> version ranges in dependency management import declarations. Version
>>> ranges are supported everywhere but dependency management _import_
>>> declarations. We already agreed that this is a bug fix and this would
>>> have been part of Maven 3.4.0, if we would not have dropped it due to
>>> the resolver changes. MNG-4463 has been reported in JIRA 23/Nov/09
>>> 09:39! It's tiresome to discuss things committed in 2014 now. See the
>>> 'ModelResolver' interface from Maven 3.2.2. It already contains that
>>> logic for 'Parent' model objects.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> The new method in 3.5.0 for 'Dependency' model objects will only be used
>>> to support version ranges in dependency management _import_ declarations
>>> coming in 3.5.1.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>
>> MNG-4463 is marked for 3.5.1, not for 3.5.0, so this would *not* the the  
>> moment to commit it.
> 
> Did you read the description of MNG-6182? There is a good reason not to
> enhance a public API in a patch release. Just take a look at the history
> of the ModelResolver interface. It changed in incompatible ways between
> releases. I'd like this to be stable again in the next feature release.
> That is 3.5.0 - not 3.5.1. That interface is just an adapter (the
> maven-model-builder module does not depend on the resolver). I would not
> want to add yet another adapter interface instead of enhancing the
> existing one. It's *the* moment to commit this. That's why I added a
> method not used by anything at the moment. Maven 3.5.0 still is a
> drop-in replacement that way. No one needs to update an implementation.
> This will change as soon as something starts to call the new method in
> 3.5.1, of course. Just as we add dependencies to Maven 3.0.0 in the
> plugins ourselves instead of - say - Maven 3.3.9, I'd like others to be
> able to depend on Maven 3.5.0 to compile against that API instead of
> 3.5.x. I am repeating the description of MNG-6182 already. I know the
> Netbeans IDE is implementing the ModelResolver interface. No one would
> expect that interface to change between 3.5.0 and 3.5.1 in a way that
> you get a compile time error when compiling against 3.5.1 instead of 3.5.0.
> 
>>
>> Let's first push 3.5.0 and give everybody the change to dive into the  
>> complexity of dependency resolution once we start with 3.5.1
> 
> What complexity are you talking about? Someone using version ranges in a
> dependency management import declaration will not do this without
> intention. Maven currently fails the build with an error message. Just
> like mentioned in the description of MNG-4463. No one expects a public
> API to be enhanced between 3.5.0 and 3.5.1. Are we really discussing the
> addition of a new method *not used anywhere*? When in doubt, we should
> start a vote on this.
> 
> Regards,
> 

And for the very same reason I am currently reviewing this commit



so that the changes to the public APIs can be part of 3.5.0 in the same
way. Add deprecations to old methods, add new methods but do not change
anything else by just not calling the new methods and keep things
unchanged. I am very sure we want to ship a stable 3.5.0 API.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Christian Schulte]

Am 03/10/17 um 20:16 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:47:45 +0100, Christian Schulte   
> wrote:
> 
>> Am 03/10/17 um 10:42 schrieb Robert Scholte:
>>> Having a closer look at this commit, I actually don't like the idea that
>>> ModelResolver now supports versionRanges.
>>> IMO the version should always be specific *before* resolving the model.
>>> IIUC correctly this is required to supported version-ranges for managed
>>> dependencies, and that is also something I wonder if we want that.
>>>
>>> Please let us reconsider this commit.
>>
>> You do notice the parent resolution is part of that interface since
>> Maven 3.2.2? I just added the same logic for dependencies to support
>> version ranges in dependency management import declarations. Version
>> ranges are supported everywhere but dependency management _import_
>> declarations. We already agreed that this is a bug fix and this would
>> have been part of Maven 3.4.0, if we would not have dropped it due to
>> the resolver changes. MNG-4463 has been reported in JIRA 23/Nov/09
>> 09:39! It's tiresome to discuss things committed in 2014 now. See the
>> 'ModelResolver' interface from Maven 3.2.2. It already contains that
>> logic for 'Parent' model objects.
>>
>> 
>>
>> The new method in 3.5.0 for 'Dependency' model objects will only be used
>> to support version ranges in dependency management _import_ declarations
>> coming in 3.5.1.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Regards,
> 
> MNG-4463 is marked for 3.5.1, not for 3.5.0, so this would *not* the the  
> moment to commit it.

Did you read the description of MNG-6182? There is a good reason not to
enhance a public API in a patch release. Just take a look at the history
of the ModelResolver interface. It changed in incompatible ways between
releases. I'd like this to be stable again in the next feature release.
That is 3.5.0 - not 3.5.1. That interface is just an adapter (the
maven-model-builder module does not depend on the resolver). I would not
want to add yet another adapter interface instead of enhancing the
existing one. It's *the* moment to commit this. That's why I added a
method not used by anything at the moment. Maven 3.5.0 still is a
drop-in replacement that way. No one needs to update an implementation.
This will change as soon as something starts to call the new method in
3.5.1, of course. Just as we add dependencies to Maven 3.0.0 in the
plugins ourselves instead of - say - Maven 3.3.9, I'd like others to be
able to depend on Maven 3.5.0 to compile against that API instead of
3.5.x. I am repeating the description of MNG-6182 already. I know the
Netbeans IDE is implementing the ModelResolver interface. No one would
expect that interface to change between 3.5.0 and 3.5.1 in a way that
you get a compile time error when compiling against 3.5.1 instead of 3.5.0.

> 
> Let's first push 3.5.0 and give everybody the change to dive into the  
> complexity of dependency resolution once we start with 3.5.1

What complexity are you talking about? Someone using version ranges in a
dependency management import declaration will not do this without
intention. Maven currently fails the build with an error message. Just
like mentioned in the description of MNG-4463. No one expects a public
API to be enhanced between 3.5.0 and 3.5.1. Are we really discussing the
addition of a new method *not used anywhere*? When in doubt, we should
start a vote on this.

Regards,
-- 
Christian


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Robert Scholte]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:47:45 +0100, Christian Schulte   
wrote:



Am 03/10/17 um 10:42 schrieb Robert Scholte:

Having a closer look at this commit, I actually don't like the idea that
ModelResolver now supports versionRanges.
IMO the version should always be specific *before* resolving the model.
IIUC correctly this is required to supported version-ranges for managed
dependencies, and that is also something I wonder if we want that.

Please let us reconsider this commit.


You do notice the parent resolution is part of that interface since
Maven 3.2.2? I just added the same logic for dependencies to support
version ranges in dependency management import declarations. Version
ranges are supported everywhere but dependency management _import_
declarations. We already agreed that this is a bug fix and this would
have been part of Maven 3.4.0, if we would not have dropped it due to
the resolver changes. MNG-4463 has been reported in JIRA 23/Nov/09
09:39! It's tiresome to discuss things committed in 2014 now. See the
'ModelResolver' interface from Maven 3.2.2. It already contains that
logic for 'Parent' model objects.



The new method in 3.5.0 for 'Dependency' model objects will only be used
to support version ranges in dependency management _import_ declarations
coming in 3.5.1.



Regards,


MNG-4463 is marked for 3.5.1, not for 3.5.0, so this would *not* the the  
moment to commit it.


Let's first push 3.5.0 and give everybody the change to dive into the  
complexity of dependency resolution once we start with 3.5.1


Robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Christian Schulte]

Am 03/10/17 um 10:42 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> Having a closer look at this commit, I actually don't like the idea that  
> ModelResolver now supports versionRanges.
> IMO the version should always be specific *before* resolving the model.
> IIUC correctly this is required to supported version-ranges for managed  
> dependencies, and that is also something I wonder if we want that.
> 
> Please let us reconsider this commit.

You do notice the parent resolution is part of that interface since
Maven 3.2.2? I just added the same logic for dependencies to support
version ranges in dependency management import declarations. Version
ranges are supported everywhere but dependency management _import_
declarations. We already agreed that this is a bug fix and this would
have been part of Maven 3.4.0, if we would not have dropped it due to
the resolver changes. MNG-4463 has been reported in JIRA 23/Nov/09
09:39! It's tiresome to discuss things committed in 2014 now. See the
'ModelResolver' interface from Maven 3.2.2. It already contains that
logic for 'Parent' model objects.



The new method in 3.5.0 for 'Dependency' model objects will only be used
to support version ranges in dependency management _import_ declarations
coming in 3.5.1.



Regards,
-- 
Christian


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

[Robert Scholte]

Having a closer look at this commit, I actually don't like the idea that  
ModelResolver now supports versionRanges.

IMO the version should always be specific *before* resolving the model.
IIUC correctly this is required to supported version-ranges for managed  
dependencies, and that is also something I wonder if we want that.


Please let us reconsider this commit.

thanks,
Robert


On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 19:29:51 +0100,  wrote:


Repository: maven
Updated Branches:
  refs/heads/master 114ef6c5a -> ab800b0cf


[MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.


Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/repo
Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/commit/ab800b0c
Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/tree/ab800b0c
Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/diff/ab800b0c

Branch: refs/heads/master
Commit: ab800b0cfae4e3ca9453304e3b9727ba4a4b712b
Parents: 114ef6c
Author: Christian Schulte 
Authored: Sat Jan 30 19:17:34 2016 +0100
Committer: Christian Schulte 
Committed: Wed Mar 8 18:24:18 2017 +0100

--
 .../maven/project/ProjectModelResolver.java | 84 +++
 .../maven/model/resolution/ModelResolver.java   | 32 
 .../internal/DefaultModelResolver.java  | 85  


 3 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
--


http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/blob/ab800b0c/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/ProjectModelResolver.java
--
diff --git  
a/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/ProjectModelResolver.java  
b/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/ProjectModelResolver.java

index 7b93217..3a31d33 100644
---  
a/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/ProjectModelResolver.java
+++  
b/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/ProjectModelResolver.java

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ import java.util.Set;
import com.google.common.base.Predicate;
 import com.google.common.collect.Iterables;
-
+import org.apache.maven.model.Dependency;
 import org.apache.maven.model.Parent;
 import org.apache.maven.model.Repository;
 import org.apache.maven.model.building.FileModelSource;
@@ -203,24 +203,26 @@ public class ProjectModelResolver
 return new FileModelSource( pomFile );
 }
-public ModelSource resolveModel( Parent parent )
+@Override
+public ModelSource resolveModel( final Parent parent )
 throws UnresolvableModelException
 {
-Artifact artifact = new DefaultArtifact( parent.getGroupId(),  
parent.getArtifactId(), "", "pom",

- parent.getVersion() );
-
-VersionRangeRequest versionRangeRequest = new  
VersionRangeRequest( artifact, repositories, context );

-versionRangeRequest.setTrace( trace );
-
 try
 {
-VersionRangeResult versionRangeResult =  
resolver.resolveVersionRange( session, versionRangeRequest );
+final Artifact artifact = new DefaultArtifact(  
parent.getGroupId(), parent.getArtifactId(), "", "pom",
+
parent.getVersion() );

+
+final VersionRangeRequest versionRangeRequest = new  
VersionRangeRequest( artifact, repositories, context );

+versionRangeRequest.setTrace( trace );
+
+final VersionRangeResult versionRangeResult =  
resolver.resolveVersionRange( session, versionRangeRequest );

if ( versionRangeResult.getHighestVersion() == null )
 {
-throw new UnresolvableModelException( "No versions  
matched the requested range '" + parent.getVersion()
-  + "'",  
parent.getGroupId(), parent.getArtifactId(),
-   
parent.getVersion() );

+throw new UnresolvableModelException(
+String.format( "No versions matched the requested  
parent version range '%s'",

+   parent.getVersion() ),
+parent.getGroupId(), parent.getArtifactId(),  
parent.getVersion() );

}
@@ -229,21 +231,69 @@ public class ProjectModelResolver
  &&  
versionRangeResult.getVersionConstraint().getRange().getUpperBound() ==  
null )

 {
 // Message below is checked for in the MNG-2199 core IT.
-throw new UnresolvableModelException( "The requested  
version range '" + parent.getVersion()
-  + "' does not  
specify an upper bound", parent.getGroupId(),
-   
parent.getArtifactId(),