Details
-
Type:
Bug
-
Status:
Open
-
Priority:
Major
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Affects Version/s: 1.8.2
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:None
-
Environment:All environments
-
Number of attachments :
Description
The test:test goal has been modified to conditionally invoke test:compile via attainGoal(test:compile). This was previously done with the prereqs attribute. Doing so caused the java:compile and all pre/post goals associated to fire twice. You can witness this behaviour even when compiling MAven 1.1 from source.
It seems unnecessary to do this for the test:test goal which conditionally skips the tests when test:compile also conditionally skips compiling. Making the same operation for test:single which intentionally omits the check for maven.test.skip makes a lot of sense.
Issue Links
| This issue supercedes: | ||||
| MPTEST-66 | 1.8 version introduces bug in other plugins |
|
|
|
Activity
I read MPTEST-66 5 minutes after I submitted the report 
I patched the plugin to restore the previous behavior in our build environment since it was causing quite a bit of upset users having lengthy java:compile preGoals taking too much time in their builds. We have some expensive java:compile preGoals firing for every project in a mutlicomponent environment which is causing a lot of wasted time.
If the attainGoal allowed for session propagation this would have never been an issue. Why doesn't it? I am considering a patch to control this behavior globally and by tag attribute.
I patched the plugin to restore the previous behavior in our build environment since it was causing quite a bit of upset users having lengthy java:compile preGoals taking too much time in their builds. We have some expensive java:compile preGoals firing for every project in a mutlicomponent environment which is causing a lot of wasted time.
If the attainGoal allowed for session propagation this would have never been an issue. Why doesn't it? I am considering a patch to control this behavior globally and by tag attribute.
Did you read
MPTEST-66? If we can come up with a general solution, without spoilingMPTEST-46, ... well, patches would be warmly welcomed.MPTEST-66? If we can come up with a general solution, without spoilingMPTEST-46, ... well, patches would be warmly welcomed.