Introduce an attribute for the platform groupId

[gsmet]

/cc @inoxx03 here you go for what you requested.

@ebullient I'm a bit concerned by the first commit: your metadata checking tool reported some errors but apparently only because I modified the file. I think we should at least run it on all the files that are around once to fix the failures. And maybe we should also trigger a full run when it is modified.

@inoxx03 the second commit concerns me a bit. It's not the first time that I fix a formatting error that goes unnoticed for a long while. At least from time to time, the doc team should have a look at the output of the Maven doc build as some errors are unfortunately logged at debug level and are not triggering a build failure.

[github-actions]

🙈 The PR is closed and the preview is expired.

[ebullient]

/cc @inoxx03 here you go for what you requested.

@ebullient I'm a bit concerned by the first commit: your metadata checking tool reported some errors but apparently only because I modified the file. I think we should at least run it on all the files that are around once to fix the failures. And maybe we should also trigger a full run when it is modified.

I am trying to facilitate incremental improvement by not spamming the universe with all of the errors (especially for errors related to docs you didn't touch). We can trigger analysis of everything (it's a change in parameter when you invoke the test), but I think that's an activity for a different PR.

@inoxx03 the second commit concerns me a bit. It's not the first time that I fix a formatting error that goes unnoticed for a long while. At least from time to time, the doc team should have a look at the output of the Maven doc build as some errors are unfortunately logged at debug level and are not triggering a build failure.

I should/could capture this error level in the docs build and make it a build annotation? That was my mistake originally, and a bunch of humans (including me) missed it the first few times around..

[gsmet]

@inoxx03 @michelle-purcell I let you check it's all good for you on the doc side and that it does what you wanted?

[rolfedh]

LGTM

[inoxx03]

Many thanks for implementing this change @gsmet
I think this is exactly what we need.
I'd like to give our writers a chance test this against the downstream publishing tools, but I am fairly sure that this change will allow us to reuse the automated upgrade guide (and potentially other pieces of content) downstream without the need to change the groupId manually.

[michelle-purcell]

@gsmet - Thanks. LGTM too, providing @rolfedh confirms it's usable downstream too, which it hopefully should be. 👍

[rolfedh]

@gsmet - Thanks. LGTM too, providing @rolfedh confirms it's usable downstream too, which it hopefully should be. +1

Yes, it's usable downstream, too. Please go ahead.