Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
(sorry for previous sender email) Then let's think about a name of new option, e.g. --execute-completely. WDYT? On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Tibor Digana wrote: > Then let's think about a name of new option, e.g. --execute-completely. > WDYT? > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think we need a fourth option... or maybe more. >> >> If we try to change the existing option we’ll have people crop up who rely >> on the current behaviour >> >> On Mon 5 Feb 2018 at 09:14, Tibor Digana wrote: >> >> > Maybe I have a fix candidate. >> > Lets suppose this command: >> > >> > $ mvn test --fail-at-end --also-make-dependents >> > >> > The dependent modules would not be skipped then. >> > If you additionally run with "... --project ...", this fix would still >> make >> > sense because once the -amd is applied to list of projects which you >> want >> > to include and then there is no reason to skip them or error if you use >> > -fae. >> > >> > WDYT? >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Tibor Digana >> > wrote: >> > >> > > From user perspective this is our problem. >> > > >> > > >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent >> > modules >> > > from success. >> > > >> > > Because there the feature is useless in real life. >> > > The user does not really have any option to continue with all modules, >> > > finally getting exit code 0 or 1. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Stephen Connolly < >> > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> On Sun 4 Feb 2018 at 18:35, Tibor Digana >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > So we are on the same way. Shortly speaking both options should >> build >> > >> > modules in the same way but the exit code should be a difference. >> > >> > This is problem in my company: We want to execute all unit tests of >> > all >> > >> > modules but the compiler should not complain since the classes are >> > >> pretty >> > >> > consistent and can be compiled. We want to get entire picture of >> all >> > >> unit >> > >> > tests and Exit Code should be 1 due to the tests fail. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> So to my mind, fail-never is something different. >> > >> >> > >> With fail-never all the mojo executions are attempted, so *in theory* >> > >> downstream modules may still be able to build. >> > >> >> > >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent >> modules >> > >> from success. >> > >> >> > >> What we want is a halfway house, where we continue executing phases >> > after >> > >> the failed goal and then fail at the end if any phase failed at all >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Robert Scholte < >> rfscho...@apache.org> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > I have the same expectations as Arnaud >> > >> > > >> > >> > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier < >> > >> aherit...@gmail.com >> > >> > > >> > >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > yes I think I agree >> > >> > >> my expectation would be >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build >> > >> afterwards; >> > >> > >> allow all non-impacted builds to continue >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in >> > >> > >> reactorized builds >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if failed >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, >> > >> regardless >> > >> > >> of >> > >> > >> project result >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> Always 0 >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana < >> > tibordig...@apache.org >> > >> > >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate >> > modules >> > >> are >> > >> > >>> skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit >> 0. >> > I >> > >> > want >> > >> > >>> exit 1 with --fail-at-end . >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> WDYT? >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> Cheers >> > >> > >>> Tibor >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > - >> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- >> > >> Sent from my phone >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- >> Sent from my phone >> > > > > -- > Cheers > Tibor >
Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
Then let's think about a name of new option, e.g. --execute-completely. WDYT? On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we need a fourth option... or maybe more. > > If we try to change the existing option we’ll have people crop up who rely > on the current behaviour > > On Mon 5 Feb 2018 at 09:14, Tibor Digana wrote: > > > Maybe I have a fix candidate. > > Lets suppose this command: > > > > $ mvn test --fail-at-end --also-make-dependents > > > > The dependent modules would not be skipped then. > > If you additionally run with "... --project ...", this fix would still > make > > sense because once the -amd is applied to list of projects which you want > > to include and then there is no reason to skip them or error if you use > > -fae. > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Tibor Digana > > wrote: > > > > > From user perspective this is our problem. > > > > > > >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent > > modules > > > from success. > > > > > > Because there the feature is useless in real life. > > > The user does not really have any option to continue with all modules, > > > finally getting exit code 0 or 1. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Stephen Connolly < > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun 4 Feb 2018 at 18:35, Tibor Digana > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > So we are on the same way. Shortly speaking both options should > build > > >> > modules in the same way but the exit code should be a difference. > > >> > This is problem in my company: We want to execute all unit tests of > > all > > >> > modules but the compiler should not complain since the classes are > > >> pretty > > >> > consistent and can be compiled. We want to get entire picture of all > > >> unit > > >> > tests and Exit Code should be 1 due to the tests fail. > > >> > > >> > > >> So to my mind, fail-never is something different. > > >> > > >> With fail-never all the mojo executions are attempted, so *in theory* > > >> downstream modules may still be able to build. > > >> > > >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent > modules > > >> from success. > > >> > > >> What we want is a halfway house, where we continue executing phases > > after > > >> the failed goal and then fail at the end if any phase failed at all > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Robert Scholte < > rfscho...@apache.org> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I have the same expectations as Arnaud > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier < > > >> aherit...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > yes I think I agree > > >> > >> my expectation would be > > >> > >> > > >> > >> -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build > > >> afterwards; > > >> > >> allow all non-impacted builds to continue > > >> > >> > > >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed > > >> > >> > > >> > >> -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in > > >> > >> reactorized builds > > >> > >> > > >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if failed > > >> > >> > > >> > >> -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, > > >> regardless > > >> > >> of > > >> > >> project result > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Always 0 > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana < > > tibordig...@apache.org > > >> > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate > > modules > > >> are > > >> > >>> skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit > 0. > > I > > >> > want > > >> > >>> exit 1 with --fail-at-end . > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> WDYT? > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> Cheers > > >> > >>> Tibor > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > - > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> -- > > >> Sent from my phone > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone > -- Cheers Tibor
Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
I think we need a fourth option... or maybe more. If we try to change the existing option we’ll have people crop up who rely on the current behaviour On Mon 5 Feb 2018 at 09:14, Tibor Digana wrote: > Maybe I have a fix candidate. > Lets suppose this command: > > $ mvn test --fail-at-end --also-make-dependents > > The dependent modules would not be skipped then. > If you additionally run with "... --project ...", this fix would still make > sense because once the -amd is applied to list of projects which you want > to include and then there is no reason to skip them or error if you use > -fae. > > WDYT? > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Tibor Digana > wrote: > > > From user perspective this is our problem. > > > > >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent > modules > > from success. > > > > Because there the feature is useless in real life. > > The user does not really have any option to continue with all modules, > > finally getting exit code 0 or 1. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Stephen Connolly < > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun 4 Feb 2018 at 18:35, Tibor Digana > wrote: > >> > >> > So we are on the same way. Shortly speaking both options should build > >> > modules in the same way but the exit code should be a difference. > >> > This is problem in my company: We want to execute all unit tests of > all > >> > modules but the compiler should not complain since the classes are > >> pretty > >> > consistent and can be compiled. We want to get entire picture of all > >> unit > >> > tests and Exit Code should be 1 due to the tests fail. > >> > >> > >> So to my mind, fail-never is something different. > >> > >> With fail-never all the mojo executions are attempted, so *in theory* > >> downstream modules may still be able to build. > >> > >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent modules > >> from success. > >> > >> What we want is a halfway house, where we continue executing phases > after > >> the failed goal and then fail at the end if any phase failed at all > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Robert Scholte > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > I have the same expectations as Arnaud > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier < > >> aherit...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > yes I think I agree > >> > >> my expectation would be > >> > >> > >> > >> -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build > >> afterwards; > >> > >> allow all non-impacted builds to continue > >> > >> > >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed > >> > >> > >> > >> -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in > >> > >> reactorized builds > >> > >> > >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if failed > >> > >> > >> > >> -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, > >> regardless > >> > >> of > >> > >> project result > >> > >> > >> > >> Always 0 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana < > tibordig...@apache.org > >> > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate > modules > >> are > >> > >>> skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit 0. > I > >> > want > >> > >>> exit 1 with --fail-at-end . > >> > >>> > >> > >>> WDYT? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Cheers > >> > >>> Tibor > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > - > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> -- > >> Sent from my phone > >> > > > > > -- Sent from my phone
Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
Maybe I have a fix candidate. Lets suppose this command: $ mvn test --fail-at-end --also-make-dependents The dependent modules would not be skipped then. If you additionally run with "... --project ...", this fix would still make sense because once the -amd is applied to list of projects which you want to include and then there is no reason to skip them or error if you use -fae. WDYT? On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Tibor Digana wrote: > From user perspective this is our problem. > > >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent modules > from success. > > Because there the feature is useless in real life. > The user does not really have any option to continue with all modules, > finally getting exit code 0 or 1. > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun 4 Feb 2018 at 18:35, Tibor Digana wrote: >> >> > So we are on the same way. Shortly speaking both options should build >> > modules in the same way but the exit code should be a difference. >> > This is problem in my company: We want to execute all unit tests of all >> > modules but the compiler should not complain since the classes are >> pretty >> > consistent and can be compiled. We want to get entire picture of all >> unit >> > tests and Exit Code should be 1 due to the tests fail. >> >> >> So to my mind, fail-never is something different. >> >> With fail-never all the mojo executions are attempted, so *in theory* >> downstream modules may still be able to build. >> >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent modules >> from success. >> >> What we want is a halfway house, where we continue executing phases after >> the failed goal and then fail at the end if any phase failed at all >> >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Robert Scholte >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I have the same expectations as Arnaud >> > > >> > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier < >> aherit...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > yes I think I agree >> > >> my expectation would be >> > >> >> > >> -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build >> afterwards; >> > >> allow all non-impacted builds to continue >> > >> >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed >> > >> >> > >> -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in >> > >> reactorized builds >> > >> >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if failed >> > >> >> > >> -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, >> regardless >> > >> of >> > >> project result >> > >> >> > >> Always 0 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana > > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate modules >> are >> > >>> skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit 0. I >> > want >> > >>> exit 1 with --fail-at-end . >> > >>> >> > >>> WDYT? >> > >>> >> > >>> Cheers >> > >>> Tibor >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > - >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- >> Sent from my phone >> > >
Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
>From user perspective this is our problem. >> With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent modules from success. Because there the feature is useless in real life. The user does not really have any option to continue with all modules, finally getting exit code 0 or 1. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun 4 Feb 2018 at 18:35, Tibor Digana wrote: > > > So we are on the same way. Shortly speaking both options should build > > modules in the same way but the exit code should be a difference. > > This is problem in my company: We want to execute all unit tests of all > > modules but the compiler should not complain since the classes are pretty > > consistent and can be compiled. We want to get entire picture of all unit > > tests and Exit Code should be 1 due to the tests fail. > > > So to my mind, fail-never is something different. > > With fail-never all the mojo executions are attempted, so *in theory* > downstream modules may still be able to build. > > With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent modules > from success. > > What we want is a halfway house, where we continue executing phases after > the failed goal and then fail at the end if any phase failed at all > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Robert Scholte > > wrote: > > > > > I have the same expectations as Arnaud > > > > > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier < > aherit...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > yes I think I agree > > >> my expectation would be > > >> > > >> -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build > afterwards; > > >> allow all non-impacted builds to continue > > >> > > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed > > >> > > >> -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in > > >> reactorized builds > > >> > > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if failed > > >> > > >> -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, > regardless > > >> of > > >> project result > > >> > > >> Always 0 > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate modules > are > > >>> skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit 0. I > > want > > >>> exit 1 with --fail-at-end . > > >>> > > >>> WDYT? > > >>> > > >>> Cheers > > >>> Tibor > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone >
Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
On Sun 4 Feb 2018 at 18:35, Tibor Digana wrote: > So we are on the same way. Shortly speaking both options should build > modules in the same way but the exit code should be a difference. > This is problem in my company: We want to execute all unit tests of all > modules but the compiler should not complain since the classes are pretty > consistent and can be compiled. We want to get entire picture of all unit > tests and Exit Code should be 1 due to the tests fail. So to my mind, fail-never is something different. With fail-never all the mojo executions are attempted, so *in theory* downstream modules may still be able to build. With fail-at-end, a module fails but we do not stop independent modules from success. What we want is a halfway house, where we continue executing phases after the failed goal and then fail at the end if any phase failed at all > > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Robert Scholte > wrote: > > > I have the same expectations as Arnaud > > > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier > > > wrote: > > > > yes I think I agree > >> my expectation would be > >> > >> -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build afterwards; > >> allow all non-impacted builds to continue > >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed > >> > >> -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in > >> reactorized builds > >> > >> 0 if no problem, 1 if failed > >> > >> -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, regardless > >> of > >> project result > >> > >> Always 0 > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana > >> wrote: > >> > >> I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate modules are > >>> skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit 0. I > want > >>> exit 1 with --fail-at-end . > >>> > >>> WDYT? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Tibor > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > -- Sent from my phone
Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
So we are on the same way. Shortly speaking both options should build modules in the same way but the exit code should be a difference. This is problem in my company: We want to execute all unit tests of all modules but the compiler should not complain since the classes are pretty consistent and can be compiled. We want to get entire picture of all unit tests and Exit Code should be 1 due to the tests fail. On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Robert Scholte wrote: > I have the same expectations as Arnaud > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier > wrote: > > yes I think I agree >> my expectation would be >> >> -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build afterwards; >> allow all non-impacted builds to continue >> >> 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed >> >> -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in >> reactorized builds >> >> 0 if no problem, 1 if failed >> >> -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, regardless >> of >> project result >> >> Always 0 >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana >> wrote: >> >> I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate modules are >>> skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit 0. I want >>> exit 1 with --fail-at-end . >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Tibor >>> >>> >> >> > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
I have the same expectations as Arnaud On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier wrote: yes I think I agree my expectation would be -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build afterwards; allow all non-impacted builds to continue 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in reactorized builds 0 if no problem, 1 if failed -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, regardless of project result Always 0 On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana wrote: I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate modules are skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit 0. I want exit 1 with --fail-at-end . WDYT? Cheers Tibor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?
yes I think I agree my expectation would be -fae,--fail-at-end Only fail the build afterwards; allow all non-impacted builds to continue 0 if no problem, 1 if any module failed -ff,--fail-fastStop at first failure in reactorized builds 0 if no problem, 1 if failed -fn,--fail-never NEVER fail the build, regardless of project result Always 0 On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tibor Digana wrote: > I think this is bug (mvn --fail-at-end) because intermediate modules are > skipped. Unlike --fail-never runs all modules but returns exit 0. I want > exit 1 with --fail-at-end . > > WDYT? > > Cheers > Tibor > -- - Arnaud Héritier http://aheritier.net Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com Twitter/Skype : aheritier
