New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Shipkit pom customizations #831

Merged
merged 17 commits into from Aug 26, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@wwilk
Contributor

wwilk commented Aug 9, 2017

I will make further pom customizations, to keep the same format as it was before introducing shipkit.
I'm travelling right now so these will be probably small changes, you can wait with merging this PR before all is done.

Starting with . Before you had sth like that:

    <developer>
      <id>johanhaleby</id>
      <name>Johan Haleby</name>
      <email>johan.haleby at jayway.com</email>
    </developer>

Shipkit currently supports format:

    <developer>
      <id>johanhaleby</id>
      <name>Johan Haleby</name>
      <roles>
        <role>Core developer</role>
      </roles>
      <url>https://github.com/johanhaleby</url>
    </developer>

@thekingnothing What do you think about it? Is it acceptable or you would like to keep this email for developers? We may think of supporting it in shipkit or customize it here. As you can see I removed code that modified from powermock code.

Additionally shipkit generates section, that looks like that:

    <contributor>
      <name>René Scheibe</name>
      <url>https://github.com/darxriggs</url>
    </contributor>

I hope you are ok with that.

wwilk and others added some commits Aug 4, 2017

@wwilk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wwilk

wwilk Aug 9, 2017

Contributor

Scm section currently:

  <scm>
    <url>http://github.com/mockito/mockito</url>
    <connection>scm:git:git://github.com/powermock/powermock</connection>
    <developerConnection>scm:git:git://github.com/powermock/powermock</developerConnection>
  </scm>

With shipkit:

  <scm>
    <url>https://github.com/powermock/powermock.git</url>
  </scm>

Do we need these additional properties?

Contributor

wwilk commented Aug 9, 2017

Scm section currently:

  <scm>
    <url>http://github.com/mockito/mockito</url>
    <connection>scm:git:git://github.com/powermock/powermock</connection>
    <developerConnection>scm:git:git://github.com/powermock/powermock</developerConnection>
  </scm>

With shipkit:

  <scm>
    <url>https://github.com/powermock/powermock.git</url>
  </scm>

Do we need these additional properties?

@wwilk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wwilk
Contributor

wwilk commented Aug 9, 2017

@wwilk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wwilk

wwilk Aug 9, 2017

Contributor

There is a really subtle difference about ( is "GitHub issues" instead of "GitHub") so I'm removing this section from "publish-maven.gradle".

Contributor

wwilk commented Aug 9, 2017

There is a really subtle difference about ( is "GitHub issues" instead of "GitHub") so I'm removing this section from "publish-maven.gradle".

@mockitoguy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mockitoguy

mockitoguy Aug 10, 2017

Hey guys. If needed I think we can keep the existing withXml() section in powermock's build.gradle file. withXml() can be used to register multiple actions, each action will manipulate the xml. If shipikit .gradle does not have developers, it does not add this section to the xml at all. So the withXml() from powermockito can simply fill it out.

mockitoguy commented Aug 10, 2017

Hey guys. If needed I think we can keep the existing withXml() section in powermock's build.gradle file. withXml() can be used to register multiple actions, each action will manipulate the xml. If shipikit .gradle does not have developers, it does not add this section to the xml at all. So the withXml() from powermockito can simply fill it out.

@wwilk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wwilk

wwilk Aug 10, 2017

Contributor

Yes, of course we can do it, I only wanted to show @thekingnothing what the difference would be if he used it the shipkit way.

Contributor

wwilk commented Aug 10, 2017

Yes, of course we can do it, I only wanted to show @thekingnothing what the difference would be if he used it the shipkit way.

@thekingnothing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thekingnothing

thekingnothing Aug 10, 2017

Member

@szczepiq thank you for your comments.

@wwilk, I prefer keeping emails in pom.xml instead Github links, because Github only one of possible services. PowerMock had migration experience from GoogleCode to GitHub. Email it is a general coordinate and a developer could be reached out in easy way.

Member

thekingnothing commented Aug 10, 2017

@szczepiq thank you for your comments.

@wwilk, I prefer keeping emails in pom.xml instead Github links, because Github only one of possible services. PowerMock had migration experience from GoogleCode to GitHub. Email it is a general coordinate and a developer could be reached out in easy way.

@thekingnothing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thekingnothing

thekingnothing Aug 10, 2017

Member

By the way why is http://github.com/mockito/mockito
A good catch. It's an artifact of the copy-past development style :)

Member

thekingnothing commented Aug 10, 2017

By the way why is http://github.com/mockito/mockito
A good catch. It's an artifact of the copy-past development style :)

@thekingnothing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thekingnothing

thekingnothing Aug 10, 2017

Member

I'm oaky with

  <scm>
    <url>https://github.com/powermock/powermock.git</url>
  </scm>
Member

thekingnothing commented Aug 10, 2017

I'm oaky with

  <scm>
    <url>https://github.com/powermock/powermock.git</url>
  </scm>
@thekingnothing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thekingnothing

thekingnothing Aug 10, 2017

Member

@wwilk could you check last changes. After them build have started fail with compile error:

:powermock-core:compileTestJava/home/travis/build/powermock/powermock/powermock-core/src/test/java/org/powermock/configuration/ConfigurationFactoryImplTest.java:24: error: package org.powermock.api.mockito does not exist
import org.powermock.api.mockito.ConfigurationTestUtils;
Member

thekingnothing commented Aug 10, 2017

@wwilk could you check last changes. After them build have started fail with compile error:

:powermock-core:compileTestJava/home/travis/build/powermock/powermock/powermock-core/src/test/java/org/powermock/configuration/ConfigurationFactoryImplTest.java:24: error: package org.powermock.api.mockito does not exist
import org.powermock.api.mockito.ConfigurationTestUtils;

@thekingnothing thekingnothing merged commit 8349d03 into powermock:dev/1.x Aug 26, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

thekingnothing added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 27, 2017

Shipkit pom customizations (#831)
Fixes #826
* Initial configuration of Shipkit
* Introduced shipkit format of developers section in pom #826
* Issues section removed from publish-maven.gradle #826
* Removed redundant packaging and description #826
* Shipkit version bumped and prefix 'powermock-' used instead of 'v' #826
* Disabled redundant tasks for unpublishable modules #826
* MIT licence replaced with Apache one #826
* Publishing separately fullJars/zips and jars #826
* Compilation fixed #826
* Finished pom configuration #826
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment