Make BOMs explicit 'minimal' dependencies so that Maven considers them as upstream #21769
Conversation
quarkus-bot
bot
added
area/core
area/dependencies
| <version>${project.version}</version> | ||
| <type>pom</type> | ||
| <scope>test</scope> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@aloubyansky not sure why you didn't use scope test back then when introducing the bootstrap-bom?
| @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ | |||
| <goal>unpack-dependencies</goal> | |||
| </goals> | |||
| <configuration> | |||
| <excludeTypes>pom</excludeTypes> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Prevents: Caused by: org.codehaus.plexus.archiver.manager.NoSuchArchiverException: No such archiver: 'pom'.
The number of dependencies being upacked is identical to the one before.
|
It looks like it could be fixed in Maven itself? There are BOM imports that are effectively dependencies, so these changes look redundant form that perspective? |
|
I agree that this seems like a bug/gap in Maven. IIRC there was a long standing issue for that. I'll try to find it. |
|
@aloubyansky I think I found that old ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5455 |
This PR adds a "minimal" dependecy to each pom.xml that already imports the respective BOM. This ensures that Maven considers those BOMs "upstream" modules, so that
mvn -amcan be used consistently.This is especially useful when bisecting, e.g. to find out when a test in a specific module became flaky (or broke entirely), so that you don't need to rebuild the entire project.
This PR also removes two redundant imports.
PS: I don't think we need "script support" for this because the places where BOMs are imported are rare and pretty "stable".