Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?

Arnaud Héritier
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-fast                        Stop 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 <[hidden email]> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?

rfscholte
I have the same expectations as Arnaud

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>  
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-fast                        Stop 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 <[hidden email]>  
> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is --fail-at-end buggy?

Tibor Digana
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun 4 Feb 2018 at 18:35, Tibor Digana <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I have the same expectations as Arnaud
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:55:20 +0100, Arnaud Héritier <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > > 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-fast                        Stop 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 <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > >> 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: [hidden email]
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> --
>> Sent from my phone
>>
>
>