Quantcast

[sonar-dev] plugin dependency checking

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[sonar-dev] plugin dependency checking

Ann Campbell
So... 3.2 is out. I updated the changes to the new version of WidgetLab that I'm working on & tried to spin it up for testing.

Got a stacktrace in the logs, headed by this: Plugin widgetlab needs a more recent version of Sonar than 3.2-RC1. At least 3.2 is expected

Okay, so I'm lazy. 3.2RC1 should have in it all the bits I need for testing. I didn't bother to upgrade on my localhost for this tiny change - I've tested all the other functionality against the RC & the only new part I needed was the ability to compile against the 3.2 API to use the new TEXT widget property type.

I saw in the Road Map that 3.2 would add plugin dependency checking, but was it intended to kick in at this granular a level?


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720


**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [sonar-dev] plugin dependency checking

Simon Brandhof
Indeed versions with qualifiers (-SNAPSHOT, -RC, ...) are considered as different than the same release version, for instance 3.2-RC1 < 3.2. It makes sense when plugins depend on unstable API of dev versions. For example a plugin could work with 3.3-M2 but not with 3.3-M1.

An improvement is to have different behaviors for milestones/snapshots and release candidates. But is it worth it ?


On 7 August 2012 15:27, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
So... 3.2 is out. I updated the changes to the new version of WidgetLab that I'm working on & tried to spin it up for testing.

Got a stacktrace in the logs, headed by this: Plugin widgetlab needs a more recent version of Sonar than 3.2-RC1. At least 3.2 is expected

Okay, so I'm lazy. 3.2RC1 should have in it all the bits I need for testing. I didn't bother to upgrade on my localhost for this tiny change - I've tested all the other functionality against the RC & the only new part I needed was the ability to compile against the 3.2 API to use the new TEXT widget property type.

I saw in the Road Map that 3.2 would add plugin dependency checking, but was it intended to kick in at this granular a level?


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720


**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [sonar-dev] plugin dependency checking

Ann Campbell
Okay... I'll just point out that it's impossible to develop against an "unstable API of dev versions" ... because y'all won't release RC API's! :-)

IMO, the difference between version x.y-RCz and version x.y should be a warning, not an error. But it would mainly be a convenience thing for the lazy and probably isn't worth the effort.


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720



On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Simon Brandhof <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed versions with qualifiers (-SNAPSHOT, -RC, ...) are considered as different than the same release version, for instance 3.2-RC1 < 3.2. It makes sense when plugins depend on unstable API of dev versions. For example a plugin could work with 3.3-M2 but not with 3.3-M1.

An improvement is to have different behaviors for milestones/snapshots and release candidates. But is it worth it ?


On 7 August 2012 15:27, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
So... 3.2 is out. I updated the changes to the new version of WidgetLab that I'm working on & tried to spin it up for testing.

Got a stacktrace in the logs, headed by this: Plugin widgetlab needs a more recent version of Sonar than 3.2-RC1. At least 3.2 is expected

Okay, so I'm lazy. 3.2RC1 should have in it all the bits I need for testing. I didn't bother to upgrade on my localhost for this tiny change - I've tested all the other functionality against the RC & the only new part I needed was the ability to compile against the 3.2 API to use the new TEXT widget property type.

I saw in the Road Map that 3.2 would add plugin dependency checking, but was it intended to kick in at this granular a level?


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720


**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com



**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [sonar-dev] plugin dependency checking

Simon Brandhof


On 8 August 2012 14:26, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Okay... I'll just point out that it's impossible to develop against an "unstable API of dev versions" ... because y'all won't release RC API's! :-)


No, RC artifacts are available in maven central repository : <a href="http://search.maven.org/#search|gav|1|g%3A%22org.codehaus.sonar%22%20AND%20a%3A%22sonar-plugin-api%22">http://search.maven.org/#search|gav|1|g%3A%22org.codehaus.sonar%22%20AND%20a%3A%22sonar-plugin-api%22, but javadoc is not published.

 
IMO, the difference between version x.y-RCz and version x.y should be a warning, not an error. But it would mainly be a convenience thing for the lazy and probably isn't worth the effort.

That's my opinion too. We can also simply speed up the delay between RC and final release !
 


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720



On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Simon Brandhof <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed versions with qualifiers (-SNAPSHOT, -RC, ...) are considered as different than the same release version, for instance 3.2-RC1 < 3.2. It makes sense when plugins depend on unstable API of dev versions. For example a plugin could work with 3.3-M2 but not with 3.3-M1.

An improvement is to have different behaviors for milestones/snapshots and release candidates. But is it worth it ?


On 7 August 2012 15:27, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
So... 3.2 is out. I updated the changes to the new version of WidgetLab that I'm working on & tried to spin it up for testing.

Got a stacktrace in the logs, headed by this: Plugin widgetlab needs a more recent version of Sonar than 3.2-RC1. At least 3.2 is expected

Okay, so I'm lazy. 3.2RC1 should have in it all the bits I need for testing. I didn't bother to upgrade on my localhost for this tiny change - I've tested all the other functionality against the RC & the only new part I needed was the ability to compile against the 3.2 API to use the new TEXT widget property type.

I saw in the Road Map that 3.2 would add plugin dependency checking, but was it intended to kick in at this granular a level?


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720


**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com



**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [sonar-dev] plugin dependency checking

Ann Campbell
Okay... Now I'm confused. You said in this thread: 
http://markmail.org/thread/6pgkd6tsxnyebo2h

that you don't & won't release RC API's

...?

---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720



On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Simon Brandhof <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 8 August 2012 14:26, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Okay... I'll just point out that it's impossible to develop against an "unstable API of dev versions" ... because y'all won't release RC API's! :-)


No, RC artifacts are available in maven central repository : http://search.maven.org/#search|gav|1|g%3A%22org.codehaus.sonar%22%20AND%20a%3A%22sonar-plugin-api%22, but javadoc is not published.

 
IMO, the difference between version x.y-RCz and version x.y should be a warning, not an error. But it would mainly be a convenience thing for the lazy and probably isn't worth the effort.

That's my opinion too. We can also simply speed up the delay between RC and final release !
 


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720



On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Simon Brandhof <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed versions with qualifiers (-SNAPSHOT, -RC, ...) are considered as different than the same release version, for instance 3.2-RC1 < 3.2. It makes sense when plugins depend on unstable API of dev versions. For example a plugin could work with 3.3-M2 but not with 3.3-M1.

An improvement is to have different behaviors for milestones/snapshots and release candidates. But is it worth it ?


On 7 August 2012 15:27, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
So... 3.2 is out. I updated the changes to the new version of WidgetLab that I'm working on & tried to spin it up for testing.

Got a stacktrace in the logs, headed by this: Plugin widgetlab needs a more recent version of Sonar than 3.2-RC1. At least 3.2 is expected

Okay, so I'm lazy. 3.2RC1 should have in it all the bits I need for testing. I didn't bother to upgrade on my localhost for this tiny change - I've tested all the other functionality against the RC & the only new part I needed was the ability to compile against the 3.2 API to use the new TEXT widget property type.

I saw in the Road Map that 3.2 would add plugin dependency checking, but was it intended to kick in at this granular a level?


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720


**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com



**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com



**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [sonar-dev] plugin dependency checking

Simon Brandhof
I assumed in this email that you found the artifacts in maven central repo, so that you were talking about javadoc.

On 8 August 2012 15:10, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Okay... Now I'm confused. You said in this thread: 
http://markmail.org/thread/6pgkd6tsxnyebo2h

that you don't & won't release RC API's

...?

---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720



On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Simon Brandhof <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 8 August 2012 14:26, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Okay... I'll just point out that it's impossible to develop against an "unstable API of dev versions" ... because y'all won't release RC API's! :-)


No, RC artifacts are available in maven central repository : http://search.maven.org/#search|gav|1|g%3A%22org.codehaus.sonar%22%20AND%20a%3A%22sonar-plugin-api%22, but javadoc is not published.

 
IMO, the difference between version x.y-RCz and version x.y should be a warning, not an error. But it would mainly be a convenience thing for the lazy and probably isn't worth the effort.

That's my opinion too. We can also simply speed up the delay between RC and final release !
 


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720



On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Simon Brandhof <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed versions with qualifiers (-SNAPSHOT, -RC, ...) are considered as different than the same release version, for instance 3.2-RC1 < 3.2. It makes sense when plugins depend on unstable API of dev versions. For example a plugin could work with 3.3-M2 but not with 3.3-M1.

An improvement is to have different behaviors for milestones/snapshots and release candidates. But is it worth it ?


On 7 August 2012 15:27, Ann Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
So... 3.2 is out. I updated the changes to the new version of WidgetLab that I'm working on & tried to spin it up for testing.

Got a stacktrace in the logs, headed by this: Plugin widgetlab needs a more recent version of Sonar than 3.2-RC1. At least 3.2 is expected

Okay, so I'm lazy. 3.2RC1 should have in it all the bits I need for testing. I didn't bother to upgrade on my localhost for this tiny change - I've tested all the other functionality against the RC & the only new part I needed was the ability to compile against the 3.2 API to use the new TEXT widget property type.

I saw in the Road Map that 3.2 would add plugin dependency checking, but was it intended to kick in at this granular a level?


---
G. Ann Campbell
Sr. Systems Engineer, IS Production Systems - Shop Floor Systems
Shaw Industries Inc,
201 S. Hamilton St.
Dalton Ga 30720


**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com



**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com



**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company  or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************




--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

Loading...