Re: More DefaultArtifactCollector queries

[Mark Hobson <ma...@gmail.com>]

Okay, a bit of closure on this thread..

The apparent conflict with the internal resolution tree was due to
incorrect assertions by the test - the artifacts were being collected
twice, and since collection mutates artifacts, an incorrect resolution
tree was being produced.  Now fixed.

The main issue of a farthest artifact winning over a nearest one still
seems slightly wrong to me.  It appears to have been introduced by the
fix for MNG-1895.  A quick example is as follows:  The following
dependency tree:

g:p:t:1
\- g:a:t:1
   +- g:b:t:1
   |  \- g:c:t:1:compile
   \- g:c:t:1:test

Gets resolved as:

g:p:t:1
\- g:a:t:1
   +- g:b:t:1
   |  \- g:c:t:1:compile
   \- (g:c:t:1:compile - scope updated from test; omitted for duplicate)

Whereas I would have thought nearest should still win:

g:p:t:1
\- g:a:t:1
   +- g:b:t:1
   |  \- (g:c:t:1:compile - omitted for duplicate)
   \- g:c:t:1:compile (scope updated from test)

I don't think fixing this would fail the test for MNG-1895, since it
only considers the resolved set of artifacts.  Also, I think that
using nearest wins here would also fix MNG-3089, which is currently
blocking filtering a dependency tree by scope.

Any comments?

Cheers,

Mark

On 25/09/2007, Mark Hobson <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/07/2007, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > IIRC, it switched to the other dependency because the alternate scope
> > is going to modify the subtree under that dependency. Does that make
> > sense?
>
> Blast from the past..  sorry Brett, I don't see what your saying here.
>  There's no subtree under the conflicting dependency (g:c:t:1) to be
> modified.  And why would the fired events differ from the resolution
> tree as described above?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org