Add Java requirements to the Dependency Report

Your idea is a good addon but your patch proposes two features:

• Java Version
• Dependency Repository Locations

So, create a new issue for the second one.

For the Java Version point, IMHO the patch should be against the project-summary.html after the build section. Could send us a new patch?

The patch was only ever one change to add the java version - but one line I had copy/pasted by mistake referred to repository locations.

Anyway I still think this info would be really good on the "dependencies" report - since its a requirement to run the project. I'm attaching an updated patch for that. However I am also attaching a separate patch to include the java version info on the summary page as you request - IMO this is not as good, but if it is your preference it is better than nothing.

Woops sorry ignore maven-projectinfo-dependency-java-v2.patch - it didn't include the updated test - attaching v3

@Niall: if patch v2 is obsolete, perhaps it should be deleted...

@all: IMO put the information in both dependencies and project-summary.

The dependencies page needs to list which version of the POM was used to provide the information.
This is already listed on the project summary page.

I'd like to suggest a change to the text in the Java dependency paragraph.

instead of:

This project requires a minimum of Java 1.3.

it would read something like:

Version xxx of this project requires a minimum of Java 1.3.

Updated patch to follow.

patch applied in r649973
Thanks

I'd like to see the commit reverted. We had a lengthy discussion about this path over on the commons dev list.

My main objection is that the site is not necessarily built with the same JDK as the artifact itself, or at the same time. This can lead to false information on the site.

reverted the commit

from a recent discussion on dev list

> I had another look at Niall's patch. My original objection was that the
> value of the JVM that ran the build (or really the site generation) was
> output in the report. I think we should just remove that part and only
> focus on the "source" and "target" values of the maven-compiler-plugin
> configuration.
Well since toolchains is released, the JVM that's running Maven is really
irrelevant in deciding what JVM is required for a plugin

Another idea: why not calculate the JDK Rev for the currently built artifact the same way it is calculated for dependencies, ie bytecode analysis? the artifact could (should?) be taken from local repository.

Another point: should this requirement be added to the dependencies report or to the project summary?

The "target" Java version needs to be added to the dependencies report, because the JVM version is a run-time dependency.
The "source" Java version should also be included as it affects the compile-time dependencies.

It would be helpful to add both the "source" and "target" Java versions to the project report.

What's important to report are the intended source and target Java versions, as defined by the POM.

I think it would be unsafe to examine the bytecode of whatever is in the local repo, as that may well be out of date.
Besides, AFAIK that can not be used to determine the "source" version.

I feel that this should be added to the project summary rather than the dependency report. The reason is that a project with no dependencies might choose to remove the dependency report, thereby loosing the JVM info in the process. Also I don't see the JVM as a dependency, but rather a prerequisite which makes it fit poorly into the dependency report.

Why not just add it to both reports?

The information can be made optional on both.

But please let's get something done to fix this omission - it's now been over two years since the request was raised.

I just added a "JDK Rev" information on summary page: see r981102
please review and improve (there is room for improvement)

I think the output should include both the source and target settings from the POM. Both are important.

Not sure why the code bothers reading the fork and compilerVersion settings.

This feature is implemented only for java projects. For other requirements, please create a new issue.