Dynamic phases proposal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Dynamic phases proposal

stephenconnolly
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

Emmanuel Bourg
Le 25/10/2019 à 21:01, Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
>
> Thoughts?

Sounds interesting. You may want to forbid the before/after prefix on
the deprecated phases (such as after:pre-clean).

The name of the phases use to start with a verb, that would no longer be
true with the proposed 'sources' and 'resources' phases. Since it isn't
that common to invoke these phases directly from the command line maybe
the longer name could be retained to preserve the consistency
(generate-sources, etc).

Emmanuel Bourg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

stephenconnolly
On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 22:48, Tamás Cservenák <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am referring to this sentence:
> "The logic of using :  in these prefix names is that it would expressly be
> impossible to invoke these dynamic pseudo phases from the CLI as Maven will
> interpret any attempt to invoke them as $plugin:$goal and look for a
> maven-before-plugin  or maven-after-plugin".
>

We can put specific checks in to give friendly error messages, but
fundamentally Maven will treat a CLI argument with one colon as a plugin
goal to execute separate from the lifecycle

We want the before and after phases to not be directly invoked via CLI or
invoker, and because you cannot have a phase with this name, it’s safe to
reuse


>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM Stephen Connolly <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 21:41, Tamás Cservenák <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The fixed phases were one of the main strengths of Maven, and with this
> > > automatism it could really be enhanced.
> > >
> > > My dislike: the `before:goal` invocation is being "projected" to non
> > > existent plugin invocation. This sounds like a hack. Could we clear
> that
> > > part up?
> >
> >
> > Could you explain what you mean? I’m not seeing what you are saying
> >
> >
> > >
> > > T
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:23 PM Emmanuel Bourg <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Le 25/10/2019 à 21:01, Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Sounds interesting. You may want to forbid the before/after prefix on
> > > > the deprecated phases (such as after:pre-clean).
> > > >
> > > > The name of the phases use to start with a verb, that would no longer
> > be
> > > > true with the proposed 'sources' and 'resources' phases. Since it
> isn't
> > > > that common to invoke these phases directly from the command line
> maybe
> > > > the longer name could be retained to preserve the consistency
> > > > (generate-sources, etc).
> > > >
> > > > Emmanuel Bourg
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
--
Sent from my phone
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

rfscholte
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
To avoid confusion, let's call it stages.

Stage 1: Always call post-bound executions (MNG-5665[1])
Stage 2: before and after
Stage 3: priorities (MNG-3522[2])
Stage 4: transitional lifecycle

For both all you need to start evaluating the value of phase.
For now we can assume that after:clean is just another label for post-clean and will have exactly the same effect.
MNG-5665 contains a proposal to change the xml, but we shouldn't do that (yet). Let's start with a hardcoded list of postphases (or in case a goal fails, see if a post-x phase exists). Stage 1 is to make it work, stage 2 to make it configurable.
IIRC you cannot ask from inside a Mojo if is was called explicitly or because it was bound to a phase, nor can you ask for the value of this phase. I kind of like this, plugins shouldn't care about this.
However, inside Maven it will become important at which phase it is to know if there are more executions to call OR create blocks of executions. Now it is just a list of executions: loop and fail fast.

thanks,
Robert

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5665
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-3522
On 25-10-2019 21:33:14, Stephen Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:
Robert,

I would be fine splitting out into, pardon the pun, phases:

Phase 1: before and after
Phase 2: priorities 
Phase 3: transitional lifecycle

Might have a phase 1.5 of before:* and after:* to catch the start of a lifecycle and the end of a lifecycle...

On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:30, Stephen Connolly <[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]> wrote:

Robert, Michael, Tibor, let’s continue here (though I asked Infra and it’s fine that anyone in the community can join our Slack)

On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:01, Stephen Connolly <[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]> wrote:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases]

Thoughts?
--

Sent from my phone
--

Sent from my phone
--

Sent from my phone
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

rfscholte
I think this is still waiting for feedback from me. There are parts that I still don't like.
Now that maven-wrapper is mostly done, I will put effort on build-consumer first, because even once implemented, there will be several other tasks that needs to be done.
After that I might have time to evaluate this topic.

Robert
On 25-5-2020 17:43:13, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
Stephen,
do we have news about this great feature ?

Enrico

Il giorno sab 23 nov 2019 alle ore 11:51 Stephen Connolly
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Ok I figured out dynamic lookup from plexus:
>
> $ mvn -version
> Apache Maven 3.5.4 (1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe;
> 2018-06-17T19:33:14+01:00)
> Maven home: /usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec
> Java version: 1.8.0_152, vendor: Oracle Corporation, runtime:
> /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_152.jdk/Contents/Home/jre
> Default locale: en_IE, platform encoding: UTF-8
> OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.14.6", arch: "x86_64", family: "mac"
> $ mvn validate
> [ERROR] The project uses experimental features that require exactly Maven
> 3.7.0-SNAPSHOT -> [Help 1]
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e
> switch.
> [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions,
> please read the following articles:
> [ERROR] [Help 1]
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MavenExecutionException
>
> Much nicer!
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 16:12, Stephen Connolly
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I have advanced the PoC a bit more by adding an experiments mechanism.
> >
> > To use the dynamic phases PoC you now need to:
> >
> > 1. Build and install Maven on the branch
> > 2. Add the experiments extension in .mvn/extensions.xml, e.g.
> >
> >
> >
> > xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/EXTENSIONS/1.0.0
> > http://maven.apache.org/xsd/core-extensions-1.0.0.xsd">
> >
> >
> > org.apache.maven
> > maven-experiments
> > 3.7.0-SNAPSHOT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. Update your pom to use the new dynamic phases.
> >
> > The reason for the experiments extension is to guard against assuming the
> > phases will work and prevent "normal" versions of Maven from producing a
> > bad build.
> >
> > Here's a build with the extension enabled:
> >
> > [INFO] Enabling experimental features of Maven 3.7.0-SNAPSHOT
> > [INFO] Experimental features enabled:
> > [INFO] * dynamic-phases
> > [INFO] Scanning for projects...
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] Reactor Build Order:
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] foo
> > [jar]
> > [INFO] bar
> > [jar]
> > [INFO] test
> > [pom]
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --------------------------
> > >---------------------------
> > [INFO] Building foo 1.0-SNAPSHOT
> > [1/3]
> > [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> > ]---------------------------------
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:resources (default-resources) @ foo
> > ---
> > [WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered
> > resources, i.e. build is platform dependent!
> > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory
> > /Users/stephenc/tmp/test/foo/src/main/resources
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:compile (default-compile) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] No sources to compile
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:testResources
> > (default-testResources) @ foo ---
> > [WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered
> > resources, i.e. build is platform dependent!
> > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory
> > /Users/stephenc/tmp/test/foo/src/test/resources
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:testCompile (default-testCompile) @
> > foo ---
> > [INFO] No sources to compile
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-surefire-plugin:2.12.4:test (default-test) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] No tests to run.
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-jar-plugin:2.4:jar (default-jar) @ foo ---
> > [WARNING] JAR will be empty - no content was marked for inclusion!
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (2) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] Executing tasks
> > [echo] beat you
> > [INFO] Executed tasks
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (1) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] Executing tasks
> > [echo] hi
> > [INFO] Executed tasks
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (4) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] Executing tasks
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (3) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] Executing tasks
> > [echo] bye
> > [INFO] Executed tasks
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] Reactor Summary for test 1.0-SNAPSHOT:
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] foo ................................................ FAILURE [
> > 2.745 s]
> > [INFO] bar ................................................ SKIPPED
> > [INFO] test ............................................... SKIPPED
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] BUILD FAILURE
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] Total time: 2.813 s
> > [INFO] Finished at: 2019-11-22T15:43:59Z
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Here's the same project with the extensions disabled
> >
> > [INFO] Scanning for projects...
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] Reactor Build Order:
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] foo
> > [jar]
> > [INFO] bar
> > [jar]
> > [INFO] test
> > [pom]
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --------------------------
> > >---------------------------
> > [INFO] Building foo 1.0-SNAPSHOT
> > [1/3]
> > [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> > ]---------------------------------
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:resources (default-resources) @ foo
> > ---
> > [WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered
> > resources, i.e. build is platform dependent!
> > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory
> > /Users/stephenc/tmp/test/foo/src/main/resources
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:compile (default-compile) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] No sources to compile
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:testResources
> > (default-testResources) @ foo ---
> > [WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered
> > resources, i.e. build is platform dependent!
> > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory
> > /Users/stephenc/tmp/test/foo/src/test/resources
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:testCompile (default-testCompile) @
> > foo ---
> > [INFO] No sources to compile
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-surefire-plugin:2.12.4:test (default-test) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] No tests to run.
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-jar-plugin:2.4:jar (default-jar) @ foo ---
> > [WARNING] JAR will be empty - no content was marked for inclusion!
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.3:run (4) @ foo ---
> > [INFO] Executing tasks
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] Reactor Summary for test 1.0-SNAPSHOT:
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] foo ................................................ FAILURE [
> > 0.745 s]
> > [INFO] bar ................................................ SKIPPED
> > [INFO] test ............................................... SKIPPED
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] BUILD FAILURE
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] Total time: 1.054 s
> > [INFO] Finished at: 2019-11-22T15:43:38Z
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Notice how the dynamic phases are completely ignored if the experiment is
> > not activated
> >
> > And here's the foo pom.xml to show what the executions are
> >
> >
> > 4.0.0
> > localdomain
> > foo
> > 1.0-SNAPSHOT
> >
> >
> >
> > maven-antrun-plugin
> >
> >
> > 1
> > before:integration-test
> >
> > run
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2
> > before:integration-test[1000]
> >
> > run
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3
> > after:integration-test
> >
> > run
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 4
> > integration-test
> >
> > run
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Finally this is what you get if you have the experiment extension added
> > but try to build with an older version of Maven:
> >
> > [WARNING] Error injecting:
> > org.apache.maven.feature.check.MavenExperimentEnabler
> > java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
> > org/apache/maven/feature/api/MavenFeatureContext
> > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0 (Native Method)
> > at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors (Class.java:2671)
> > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors (Class.java:2020)
> > at com.google.inject.spi.InjectionPoint.forConstructorOf
> > (InjectionPoint.java:245)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ConstructorBindingImpl.create
> > (ConstructorBindingImpl.java:115)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createUninitializedBinding
> > (InjectorImpl.java:706)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBinding
> > (InjectorImpl.java:929)
> > at
> > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBindingRecursive
> > (InjectorImpl.java:852)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getJustInTimeBinding
> > (InjectorImpl.java:291)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getBindingOrThrow
> > (InjectorImpl.java:222)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProviderOrThrow
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1040)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1071)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1034)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getInstance
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1086)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.space.AbstractDeferredClass.get
> > (AbstractDeferredClass.java:48)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.provision
> > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:85)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.provision
> > (InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:57)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory$1.call
> > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:66)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision
> > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:112)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.bean.BeanScheduler$CycleActivator.onProvision
> > (BeanScheduler.java:230)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision
> > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:120)
> > at
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback.provision
> > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:66)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.circularGet
> > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:61)
> > at
> > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.get
> > (InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:47)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.get
> > (ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.java:40)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.SingletonScope$1.get
> > (SingletonScope.java:148)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.get
> > (InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.java:39)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl$1.get
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1050)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.inject.LazyBeanEntry.getValue
> > (LazyBeanEntry.java:81)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.LazyPlexusBean.getValue
> > (LazyPlexusBean.java:51)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.wire.EntryListAdapter$ValueIterator.next
> > (EntryListAdapter.java:111)
> > at java.util.AbstractCollection.addAll (AbstractCollection.java:343)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.getLifecycleParticipants
> > (DefaultMaven.java:377)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute (DefaultMaven.java:206)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute (DefaultMaven.java:192)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute (DefaultMaven.java:105)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute (MavenCli.java:954)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.doMain (MavenCli.java:288)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main (MavenCli.java:192)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0 (Native Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
> > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:498)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launchEnhanced
> > (Launcher.java:289)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launch
> > (Launcher.java:229)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithExitCode
> > (Launcher.java:415)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main
> > (Launcher.java:356)
> > Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
> > org.apache.maven.feature.api.MavenFeatureContext
> > at
> > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.strategy.SelfFirstStrategy.loadClass
> > (SelfFirstStrategy.java:50)
> > at
> > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.unsynchronizedLoadClass
> > (ClassRealm.java:271)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.loadClass
> > (ClassRealm.java:247)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.loadClass
> > (ClassRealm.java:239)
> > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0 (Native Method)
> > at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors (Class.java:2671)
> > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors (Class.java:2020)
> > at com.google.inject.spi.InjectionPoint.forConstructorOf
> > (InjectionPoint.java:245)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ConstructorBindingImpl.create
> > (ConstructorBindingImpl.java:115)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createUninitializedBinding
> > (InjectorImpl.java:706)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBinding
> > (InjectorImpl.java:929)
> > at
> > com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBindingRecursive
> > (InjectorImpl.java:852)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getJustInTimeBinding
> > (InjectorImpl.java:291)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getBindingOrThrow
> > (InjectorImpl.java:222)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProviderOrThrow
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1040)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1071)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1034)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getInstance
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1086)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.space.AbstractDeferredClass.get
> > (AbstractDeferredClass.java:48)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.provision
> > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:85)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.provision
> > (InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:57)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory$1.call
> > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:66)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision
> > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:112)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.bean.BeanScheduler$CycleActivator.onProvision
> > (BeanScheduler.java:230)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision
> > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:120)
> > at
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback.provision
> > (ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:66)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.circularGet
> > (ProviderInternalFactory.java:61)
> > at
> > com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.get
> > (InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:47)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.get
> > (ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.java:40)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.SingletonScope$1.get
> > (SingletonScope.java:148)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.get
> > (InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.java:39)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl$1.get
> > (InjectorImpl.java:1050)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.inject.LazyBeanEntry.getValue
> > (LazyBeanEntry.java:81)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.LazyPlexusBean.getValue
> > (LazyPlexusBean.java:51)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.wire.EntryListAdapter$ValueIterator.next
> > (EntryListAdapter.java:111)
> > at java.util.AbstractCollection.addAll (AbstractCollection.java:343)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.getLifecycleParticipants
> > (DefaultMaven.java:377)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute (DefaultMaven.java:206)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute (DefaultMaven.java:192)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute (DefaultMaven.java:105)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute (MavenCli.java:954)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.doMain (MavenCli.java:288)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main (MavenCli.java:192)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0 (Native Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
> > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:498)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launchEnhanced
> > (Launcher.java:289)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launch
> > (Launcher.java:229)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithExitCode
> > (Launcher.java:415)
> > at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main
> > (Launcher.java:356)
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > constituent[0]: file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/conf/logging/
> > constituent[1]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-repository-metadata-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[2]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-transport-wagon-1.1.1.jar
> > constituent[3]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/aopalliance-1.0.jar
> > constituent[4]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-provider-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[5]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-utils-3.1.0.jar
> > constituent[6]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-interpolation-1.24.jar
> > constituent[7]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-artifact-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[8]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-cipher-1.7.jar
> > constituent[9]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/guava-20.0.jar
> > constituent[10]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[11]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/slf4j-api-1.7.25.jar
> > constituent[12]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/cdi-api-1.0.jar
> > constituent[13]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/jcl-over-slf4j-1.7.25.jar
> > constituent[14]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-spi-1.1.1.jar
> > constituent[15]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-compat-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[16]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-plugin-api-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[17]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-sec-dispatcher-1.4.jar
> > constituent[18]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-util-1.1.1.jar
> > constituent[19]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/plexus-component-annotations-1.7.1.jar
> > constituent[20]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-settings-builder-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[21]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/commons-cli-1.4.jar
> > constituent[22]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/commons-io-2.5.jar
> > constituent[23]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/jansi-1.17.1.jar
> > constituent[24]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-core-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[25]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-impl-1.1.1.jar
> > constituent[26]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/guice-4.2.0-no_aop.jar
> > constituent[27]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/org.eclipse.sisu.inject-0.3.3.jar
> > constituent[28]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/wagon-file-3.1.0.jar
> > constituent[29]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-builder-support-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[30]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-model-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[31]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-settings-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[32]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/wagon-http-3.1.0-shaded.jar
> > constituent[33]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-api-1.1.1.jar
> > constituent[34]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-resolver-connector-basic-1.1.1.jar
> > constituent[35]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-shared-utils-3.2.1.jar
> > constituent[36]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/org.eclipse.sisu.plexus-0.3.3.jar
> > constituent[37]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-model-builder-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[38]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/javax.inject-1.jar
> > constituent[39]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/maven-embedder-3.5.4.jar
> > constituent[40]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/jsr250-api-1.0.jar
> > constituent[41]:
> > file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/commons-lang3-3.5.jar
> > constituent[42]:
> >
> file:/usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec/lib/wagon-provider-api-3.1.0.jar
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
> > org/apache/maven/feature/api/MavenFeatureContext
> > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0(Native Method)
> > at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors(Class.java:2671)
> > at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors(Class.java:2020)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.spi.InjectionPoint.forConstructorOf(InjectionPoint.java:245)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ConstructorBindingImpl.create(ConstructorBindingImpl.java:115)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createUninitializedBinding(InjectorImpl.java:706)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBinding(InjectorImpl.java:929)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBindingRecursive(InjectorImpl.java:852)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getJustInTimeBinding(InjectorImpl.java:291)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getBindingOrThrow(InjectorImpl.java:222)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProviderOrThrow(InjectorImpl.java:1040)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider(InjectorImpl.java:1071)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getProvider(InjectorImpl.java:1034)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getInstance(InjectorImpl.java:1086)
> > at
> > org.eclipse.sisu.space
> .AbstractDeferredClass.get(AbstractDeferredClass.java:48)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.provision(ProviderInternalFactory.java:85)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.provision(InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:57)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory$1.call(ProviderInternalFactory.java:66)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision(ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:112)
> > at
> >
> org.eclipse.sisu.bean.BeanScheduler$CycleActivator.onProvision(BeanScheduler.java:230)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback$Provision.provision(ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:120)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProvisionListenerStackCallback.provision(ProvisionListenerStackCallback.java:66)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProviderInternalFactory.circularGet(ProviderInternalFactory.java:61)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.get(InternalFactoryToInitializableAdapter.java:47)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.get(ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.java:40)
> > at
> com.google.inject.internal.SingletonScope$1.get(SingletonScope.java:148)
> > at
> >
> com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.get(InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.java:39)
> > at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl$1.get(InjectorImpl.java:1050)
> > at org.eclipse.sisu.inject.LazyBeanEntry.getValue(LazyBeanEntry.java:81)
> > at
> org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.LazyPlexusBean.getValue(LazyPlexusBean.java:51)
> > at
> >
> org.eclipse.sisu.wire.EntryListAdapter$ValueIterator.next(EntryListAdapter.java:111)
> > at java.util.AbstractCollection.addAll(AbstractCollection.java:343)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.getLifecycleParticipants(DefaultMaven.java:377)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:206)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:192)
> > at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute(DefaultMaven.java:105)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute(MavenCli.java:954)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.doMain(MavenCli.java:288)
> > at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main(MavenCli.java:192)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> > at
> >
> org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launchEnhanced(Launcher.java:289)
> > at
> >
> org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launch(Launcher.java:229)
> > at
> >
> org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithExitCode(Launcher.java:415)
> > at
> > org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main(Launcher.java:356)
> > Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
> > org.apache.maven.feature.api.MavenFeatureContext
> > at
> >
> org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.strategy.SelfFirstStrategy.loadClass(SelfFirstStrategy.java:50)
> > at
> >
> org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.unsynchronizedLoadClass(ClassRealm.java:271)
> > at
> >
> org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.loadClass(ClassRealm.java:247)
> > at
> >
> org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.realm.ClassRealm.loadClass(ClassRealm.java:239)
> > ... 47 more
> >
> > I'd like to make the error message nicer, but I'll need to dig further
> > into Sisu. In any case it has the desired effect of preventing building a
> > project that uses the experiment with a version of Maven that does not
> > support the experimental features.
> >
> > The main point of experiments is to provide a way for people to try out a
> > feature *that requires adapting your project to use that feature* in a
> safe
> > way that prevents users from accidentally building with a different
> version
> > of Maven. My goal would be to maybe release a
> > 3.7.0-alpha-rfc-dynamic-phases-1 build of Maven with this experiment
> turned
> > on to gather wider feedback. Anyone using the feature would then be fully
> > aware that the experiment may end up different when we actually decide
> what
> > we want to do, but can then easily try it out without a big song and
> dance.
> >
> > NOTE: the pom rewriting that Robert has scheduled for 3.7.0 is IMHO not
> > appropriate for this kind of experiment as it doesn't affect the actual
> > build behaviour. If we have implemented pom rewriting correctly, users
> > should not notice and shouldn't need to update their pom. Dynamic phases
> > does require the pom to be updated, hence why it needs a more
> heavy-handed
> > enforcement through extensions (also the enforcer plugin wouldn't
> guarantee
> > execution on all lifecycles, so if you did something in after:clean
> > enforcer wouldn't have run)
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 21:16, Stephen Connolly
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri 15 Nov 2019 at 15:18, Robert Scholte
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have to admit that when trying to figure out from a Maven perspective
> >>> it felt like post-X should be called with pre-X too, but that opinion
> has
> >>> changed.
> >>> Why would anybody call pre-X? I'd say to bring the system ready to do
> >>> custom X stuff, so it should stop here executing any other phases.
> >>> However, when pre-X fails, I can imagine that post-X should be called
> >>> too, as Maven wasn't able to bring the system in the right state.
> >>>
> >>> The problem lies in that Maven restarts the lifecycle. If only we could
> >>> do something like
> >>> - run up until pre-X (pause the lifecycle execution)
> >>> - do your custom stuff
> >>> - finish with the post-X
> >>>
> >>> Thinking about some kind of pause... This way at least we won't break
> >>> the lifecycle and leave it clean.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That’s easy. Have a Maven-pause-plugin that just waits for you to press
> >> enter. Bind it to integration-test in a profile and presto!
> >>
> >> But that removes the need for the current explicit phases of pre- and
> >> post-
> >>
> >> TBH I think we need to lay down the plan that we want to go towards. It
> >> will take a while to change existing phases, in part because removing
> >> phases is a breaking change. You can have 3rd part plugins that bind
> >> executions to multiple phases, expecting those phases to both exist and
> >> have specific execution behaviour.
> >>
> >> Hence why I think we should go all the way technically, but leave the
> >> lifecycle mostly as-is (modulo adding any new phases and flagging
> existing
> >> phases as deprecated).
> >>
> >> Half measures will only prolong to pain for users.
> >>
> >> If instead we say: “here’s where we were, here’s where we’re going and
> >> this is how we get there” people can incorporate that and adapt
> >>
> >> Messing about with one phase, that’s just hacks. Adding the ability to
> >> define phase execution guarantees... that’s where we want to go. Adding
> the
> >> ability to control plugin execution order within phases... that’s where
> we
> >> want to go... is the syntax where we want to go? Probably not, but it’s
> how
> >> we can get there
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15-11-2019 11:07:23, Stephen Connolly
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> On Fri 15 Nov 2019 at 09:18, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On 13-11-2019 21:46:04, Stephen Connolly
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > On Wed 13 Nov 2019 at 19:29, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > The name of the branch contains MNG-5668, but it contains much
> more.
> >>> > > I'd likely lead to comments like "great", without being explicit
> >>> saying
> >>> > > which part(s).
> >>> > > I am aware there's all proposals touch the same code, but can be
> >>> released
> >>> > > isolated from each other.
> >>> > > e.g. if the enums-value are changed to "pre-" and "post-" it should
> >>> work
> >>> > > for the existing phases, which means we could already use it quite
> >>> soon
> >>> > > (still need to test it myself, though)
> >>> > > I also want to provide a counter proposal, but that takes time and
> >>> for me
> >>> > > there are other issues more important.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > How would you handle the use case that we’ve already had reported:
> >>> >
> >>> > As a user I want to test my integration tests in my IDE by running
> `mvn
> >>> > integration-test` so that the test environment is not torn down and I
> >>> can
> >>> > debug and rerun the tests until I’m ready
> >>> >
> >>> > Robert Scholte:
> >>> > I'd say if they want to set up there environment for the integration
> >>> > tests, they'd be running pre-integration-test.
> >>> > Next select in the IDE the test to execute. I don't see an issue
> here.
> >>> > Calling pre-integration-test implies NOT running
> post-integration-test.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I disagree. I think if you run the pre- phase then you should have the
> >>> post- also run
> >>>
> >>> I think we could have a differential failure mode in the pre-phases
> >>> though.
> >>> Iow a pre- phase failure returns a different exit code than the actual
> >>> phase itself
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Every time I explain people about how Maven works with phases, they
> are
> >>> > amazed it doesn't run the post-phase. I doubt we'll see issues if we
> >>> switch
> >>> > to expected behavior.
> >>> >
> >>> > Based on the different views, I hope to see more involvement of PMC
> >>> > members, because this will be a turning point that probable cannot be
> >>> > undone.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > With the new phases, the existing pom will still work, and some user
> >>> opting
> >>> > into after:integration-test knows what they are getting
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > My biggest fear is that this will result in an All-Or-Nothing, and
> I
> >>> like
> >>> > > to prevent that. If the try-finally part works as expected we can
> >>> extract
> >>> > > that part and prepare for one of the next Maven releases.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I’d like to understand your fear better. I’ve been playing with the
> >>> PoC a
> >>> > bit, and TBH it just feels right.
> >>> >
> >>> > For sure I’d prefer a schema change to encoding in a string, but I’m
> >>> also
> >>> > inclined towards string encoded dependency GAVs for 5.x so that
> >>> wouldn’t be
> >>> > the worst if we went that way.
> >>> >
> >>> > With pom rewriting, I think we could do a 4.1.0 model version that
> >>> moved
> >>> > the execution point and priority to attributes, by writing as a 4.0.0
> >>> with
> >>> > the string encoded form... iow rewriting in 4.x allows us to tidy up
> >>> the
> >>> > schema as long as it has a 1:1 mapping to a 4.0.0 modelVersion that
> >>> gets
> >>> > deployed.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Robert
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On 12-11-2019 10:25:42, Stephen Connolly
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > > On Tue 12 Nov 2019 at 07:34, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > This is not just MNG-5668, but also contains several non-existing
> >>> > issues,
> >>> > > > that should be mentioned explicitly as they will have huge
> impact:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > - support before:/after: prefix for phase-binding
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > - introduce priority
> >>> > > > - reduce phases (this one hasn't been implemented, but seems to
> be
> >>> the
> >>> > > > reason behind before:/after:)
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > All detailed in the proposal on the wiki:
> >>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Reducing phases would be a big change and not before 4.x at least
> >>> (maybe
> >>> > > 5.x more realistically... at least we’d need to deprecate the
> phases
> >>> for
> >>> > a
> >>> > > good while before removing any)
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I would like see separate branches for all of them, as they all
> >>> have
> >>> > > their
> >>> > > > own discussion.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The whole point of a PoC is the get feedback. I don’t see utility
> in
> >>> > > separate branches as they are all touching the same code.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Once we get feedback we can decide where we want to go from there.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Robert
> >>> > > > On 11-11-2019 20:31:44, Stephen Connolly
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/tree/mng-5668-poc is my POC
> >>> > > implementation
> >>> > > > for anyone interested in trying it out.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Here's a pom that builds with the PoC
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 4.0.0
> >>> > > > localdomain
> >>> > > > foo
> >>> > > > 1.0-SNAPSHOT
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > maven-antrun-plugin
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 1
> >>> > > > before:integration-test
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > run
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 2
> >>> > > > before:integration-test[1000]
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > run
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 3
> >>> > > > after:integration-test
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > run
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 4
> >>> > > > integration-test
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > run
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 10:55, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > TLDR: We can do better than, but who is in control?
> >>> lifecycle-owner,
> >>> > > > > plugin-owner or pom-owner?
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > I think we all recognize the issues we're trying to solve, but
> >>> to me
> >>> > > this
> >>> > > > > proposal is not the right solution.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > In general there are 2 issues:
> >>> > > > > 1. provide a mechanism that makes sure some executions are
> called
> >>> > even
> >>> > > > its
> >>> > > > > matching main phase fails.
> >>> > > > > 2. provide a mechanism then ensures the order of executions.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > The problem of issue 1 is described in MNG-5668, but not the
> >>> final
> >>> > > > > solution.
> >>> > > > > MNG-5668 proposes to give this power to the *lifecycle-owner*,
> >>> > whereas
> >>> > > > > stage 2 proposes to give the power to the *pom-owner*.
> >>> > > > > Both agree on the same thing: by default these post-phases
> >>> should be
> >>> > > > > triggered even after failure of the matching main phase. This
> is
> >>> > > actually
> >>> > > > > already expected behavior, so I don't expect real issues when
> >>> > > > implementing
> >>> > > > > this adjusted behavior.
> >>> > > > > To me after:integration-test is just an alias for
> >>> > > post-integration-test,
> >>> > > > > both should work the same way.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Issue 2 is a more common problem: controlling the order of
> >>> > executions.
> >>> > > > > In some cases it is pretty hard or even impossible to get the
> >>> > preferred
> >>> > > > > order. The latter happens when 2 goals of the same plugin must
> be
> >>> > > > executed
> >>> > > > > and a goal of another plugin are competing within the same
> phase.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > So let's first take a look at a phase: is there a clear
> >>> definition?
> >>> > > > > "A phase is a step in what Maven calls a 'build lifecycle'. The
> >>> build
> >>> > > > > lifecycle is an ordered sequence of phases involved in
> building a
> >>> > > > project".
> >>> > > > > "Lifecycle phases are intentionally vague, defined solely as
> >>> > > > > validation, testing, or deployment, and they may mean different
> >>> > things
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > > different projects."
> >>> > > > > Phases are intended to be called from the commandline, and
> >>> within the
> >>> > > pom
> >>> > > > > you define you can control what should happen before or during
> >>> that
> >>> > > > phase.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > To me changing the content of the -element is a codesmell as it
> >>> > > > > becomes more than just a phase, and we start programming. Why
> do
> >>> we
> >>> > > need
> >>> > > > it?
> >>> > > > > In the end it is all about ensuring the order of plugin
> >>> executions.
> >>> > > > > Stage3+4 proposes to give the power to the *pom-owner*,
> >>> > > > > whereas MPLUGIN-350[2] proposes to give this power to the
> >>> > > *plugin-owner*.
> >>> > > > > IIUR Gradle does not have this issue, because their plugins are
> >>> aware
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > > > input and output. They ensure that if the output plugin X is
> the
> >>> > input
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > > > plugin Y, than X is executed before Y.
> >>> > > > > And we should do the same. And this comes with benefits: we can
> >>> > decide
> >>> > > if
> >>> > > > > executions within a project can be executed in parallel. And
> the
> >>> pom
> >>> > > > stays
> >>> > > > > as clean as it is right now.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > In cases when there's a better ownership than the pom-owner, I
> >>> would
> >>> > > > > prefer to choose that solution. I already notice how people
> >>> (don't)
> >>> > > build
> >>> > > > > up their knowledge regarding poms. The lifecycle-owner and
> >>> > plugin-owner
> >>> > > > > know much better what they're doing.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > thanks,
> >>> > > > > Robert
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Some food for thoughts: consider a developer that wants to run
> up
> >>> > until
> >>> > > > > pre-integration-test, because he wants to bring his system in a
> >>> > certain
> >>> > > > > state so he can work with IDE to do some work.Can we say that
> If
> >>> And
> >>> > > Only
> >>> > > > > If somebody called the pre-PHASE, there's no reason to end with
> >>> the
> >>> > > > > post-PHASE?
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5668
> >>> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-350
> >>> > > > > On 26-10-2019 14:20:50, Stephen Connolly
> >>> > > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > > On Sat 26 Oct 2019 at 10:50, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > > To avoid confusion, let's call it stages.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Stage 1: Always call post-bound executions (MNG-5665[1])
> >>> > > > > > Stage 2: before and after
> >>> > > > > > Stage 3: priorities (MNG-3522[2])
> >>> > > > > > Stage 4: transitional lifecycle
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > I have a prototype of stages 1-3 nearly (80%) done... just have
> >>> to
> >>> > > polish
> >>> > > > > up and validate the bound executions with some tests
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > For both all you need to start evaluating the value of phase.
> >>> > > > > > For now we can assume that after:clean is just another label
> >>> for
> >>> > > > > > post-clean and will have exactly the same effect.
> >>> > > > > > MNG-5665 contains a proposal to change the xml, but we
> >>> shouldn't do
> >>> > > > that
> >>> > > > > > (yet). Let's start with a hardcoded list of postphases (or in
> >>> case
> >>> > a
> >>> > > > goal
> >>> > > > > > fails, see if a post-x phase exists). Stage 1 is to make it
> >>> work,
> >>> > > > stage 2
> >>> > > > > > to make it configurable.
> >>> > > > > > IIRC you cannot ask from inside a Mojo if is was called
> >>> explicitly
> >>> > or
> >>> > > > > > because it was bound to a phase, nor can you ask for the
> value
> >>> of
> >>> > > this
> >>> > > > > > phase. I kind of like this, plugins shouldn't care about
> this.
> >>> > > > > > However, inside Maven it will become important at which phase
> >>> it is
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > > > know if there are more executions to call OR create blocks of
> >>> > > > executions.
> >>> > > > > > Now it is just a list of executions: loop and fail fast.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > thanks,
> >>> > > > > > Robert
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5665
> >>> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-3522
> >>> > > > > > On 25-10-2019 21:33:14, Stephen Connolly
> >>> > > > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > > > Robert,
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I would be fine splitting out into, pardon the pun, phases:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Phase 1: before and after
> >>> > > > > > Phase 2: priorities
> >>> > > > > > Phase 3: transitional lifecycle
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Might have a phase 1.5 of before:* and after:* to catch the
> >>> start
> >>> > of
> >>> > > a
> >>> > > > > > lifecycle and the end of a lifecycle...
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:30, Stephen Connolly
> >>> > > > > > [hidden email] [mailto:
> >>> > > > [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > ]>
> >>> > > > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Robert, Michael, Tibor, let’s continue here (though I asked
> >>> Infra
> >>> > and
> >>> > > > > it’s
> >>> > > > > > fine that anyone in the community can join our Slack)
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:01, Stephen Connolly
> >>> > > > > > [hidden email] [mailto:
> >>> > > > [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > ]>
> >>> > > > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases [
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases]
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Thoughts?
> >>> > > > > > --
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Sent from my phone
> >>> > > > > > --
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Sent from my phone
> >>> > > > > > --
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Sent from my phone
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > --
> >>> > > > > Sent from my phone
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Sent from my phone
> >>> > >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Sent from my phone
> >>> >
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from my phone
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my phone
> >>
> >
>