Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

#

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Jump to bottom

Enhance multi-module conflict check for dev mode #1800

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 7, 2024
Merged

Enhance multi-module conflict check for dev mode #1800

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 7, 2024

Conversation

awisniew90
Copy link
Contributor

With this change we are:

  1. Determining the upstream and final downstream projects that are relevant to dev mode.
  2. Skipping final downstream projects that are jar projects
  3. Honoring the "skip" configuration in the plugin to apply to sub-modules.

Enhance mulit-module conflict check for dev mode
adae635 
Signed-off-by: Adam Wisniewski <awisniew@adams-mbp.pok.ibm.com>
@scottkurz scottkurz changed the title Enhance mulit-module conflict check for dev mode Enhance multi-module conflict check for dev mode Feb 29, 2024
scottkurz
scottkurz suggested changes Feb 29, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@scottkurz scottkurz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A couple high-level thoughts:

  • Should we do this for 'run' too?
  • Can we add a simple test for this?

@awisniew90 awisniew90 force-pushed the multi-mod-dev branch 6 times, most recently from 16caf60 to f247868 Compare March 5, 2024 15:53
@awisniew90 awisniew90 force-pushed the multi-mod-dev branch 2 times, most recently from cb7aaf5 to ed12a36 Compare March 6, 2024 03:36
cherylking
cherylking approved these changes Mar 6, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@cherylking cherylking left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like everything has been resolved and tests are passing.

@cherylking cherylking requested a review from scottkurz March 6, 2024 16:19
scottkurz
scottkurz suggested changes Mar 6, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@scottkurz scottkurz left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good overall.

I know I have a few logging comments.

Noting we don't, in our tests, seem to confirm that the JAR packaging type is not excluded in determining if there is >1 "leaf". (Not saying that's a problem just confirming in case you thought you did or if I looked too quick.)

scottkurz
scottkurz approved these changes Mar 7, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@scottkurz scottkurz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good..thanks for addressing those.

Enhance multi-module check for run goal
d5434a6 
Signed-off-by: Adam Wisniewski <awisniew@Adams-MacBook-Pro.local>
@cherylking cherylking merged commit 89f3c4c into OpenLiberty:main Mar 7, 2024
12 checks passed
@scottkurz scottkurz mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2024
Closed
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Reviewers

@scottkurz scottkurz scottkurz approved these changes

@cherylking cherylking cherylking approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@awisniew90 @scottkurz @cherylking