On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hi *, this is not new to those of you who attended my talk on the F2F 2016 in Brno. Let me explain the idea here again for all others who did not have a chance to be there. Srcdeps [1] is a tool to build Maven dependencies from their sources. With srcdeps, wildfly-core can depend on a specific commit of, e.g., undertow: <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-aabbccd</version.io.undertow> where aabbccd is the git commit id to build when any undertow artifact is requested during the build of wildfly-core. [1] describes in detail, how it works. The main advantage of srcdeps is that changes in components can be integrated and tested in wildfly-core immediately after they are committed to a public component branch. There is no need to wait for the component release. Here in the WildFly family of projects, it is often the case that something needs to be fixed in a component, but the verification (using bug reproducer, or integration test) is possible only at the level of wildfly or wildfly-core. Engineers typically work with snapshots locally, but when their changes need to get shared (CI, reviews) in a reproducible manner, snapshots cannot be used anymore. In such situations a source dependency come in handy: it is very easy to share and it is as reproducible as a Maven build from a specific commit can be. All CIs and reviewers can work with it, because all source dependency compilation is done under the hood by Maven. Developers working on changes that span over multiple interdependent git repos can thus get feedback (i-tests, reviews) quickly without waiting for releases of components. Srcdeps emerged in the Hawkular family of projects to solve exactly this kind of situation and is in use there since around October 2015. When I said there is no need to wait for releases of components, I did not mean that we can get rid of component releases altogether. Clearly, we cannot, because i.a. for any tooling uninformed about how srcdeps work, those source dependencies would simply be non-resolvable from public Maven repositories. So, before releasing the dependent component (such as wildfly-core) all its dependencies need to be released. To enforce this, srcdeps is by default configured to make the release fail, as long as there are source dependencies. I have sent a PR introducing srcdeps to wildfly-core: https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122 To get a feeling how it works, checkout the branch, switch to e.g. <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd</version.io.undertow> (that happens to be the commit id of the 1.4.8.Final tag) and build wildfly-core as usual with "mvn clean install". You'll see in the build log that undertow is being cloned to ~/.m2/srcdeps/io/undertow and that it is built there. After the build, check that the 1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd version of Undertow got installed to your local Maven repo (usually ~/m2/repository/io/undertow/undertow-core ) Are there any questions or comments? [1] https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven#srcdeps-maven Thanks, Peter P.S.: I will be talking about srcdeps on Saturday 2017-01-28 at 14:30 at DevConf Brno. _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

Hi Brian, thanks for your comments, more inline... On 2017-01-26 02:02, Brian Stansberry wrote: > My only concerns with this would relate to comitting this kind of src > dependency to the poms in the main branches in the widlfly/wildfly > and wildfly/wildfly-core repos. We’ve managed to survive up to now > with little or no need for that kind of thing, so until we get used > to using this in other ways IMHO we should follow the KISS principle > and forbid that. Maybe I overestimate the amount of changes that span over multiple git repos. Maybe you in the Core team do not do this often. But for us in the Sustaining Engineering Team, this is quite a typical situation. A substantial part of the reports from customers come with a description how to reproduce on the whole server, but they need to be fixed in a component. Having srcdeps would make the CP process simpler and faster, allowing us to uncover the conflicts and regressions earlier. > A trick is avoiding doing that by mistake; i.e. a PR is sent up with > a SRC dependency to get CI or review and accidentally gets merged. Oh, I am just realizing I have not said anything about merging. I actually do want to propose that commits with source dependencies get merged to e.g. wildfly-core master as early as possible. Those are the key points of Continuous Integration: get feedback quickly, and merge as soon as possible. This is exactly what Hawkular is doing since more than a year.

> But I suppose that’s not the end of the world, so long as the release > process will eventually detect it and fail. Yes, source dependencies on a stable branch do not harm. They just need to be avoided in releases (for which srcdeps offers technical means). > Can making srcdeps fail (or just disabling it) be turned on via a > maven profile? With that we could set up such a profile and turn it > on in CI jobs that are testing branches where it’s forbidden (e.g. > the nightly builds of master.) Yes, the feature is called "failWith profiles" and can be configured in .mvn/srcdeps.yaml, like here in this srcdeps quickstart: https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven/blob/master/srcdeps-maven-quicks... There is also "failWith properties" and "failWith goals". It is documented here: https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-core/blob/master/doc/srcdeps.yaml#L130 By default there is failWith: {goals: release:prepare, release:perform}. Projects that do not use the release plugin can set e.g. failWith: {goals: deploy:deploy} or whatever else distinguishes their releases. > Oh, one other concern — how robust is this in the face of poor > maintenance? I see a lot of boilerplate in that .mvn/srcdeps.yaml. Which parts are boilerpate? > If > that gets out of date or something is the only effect that using a > src dependency for the affected item doesn't work? Yes, I think so. As long as the .mvn/srcdeps.yaml file is syntactically correct, any misconfiguration there should not have any other effect than eventually breaking an embedded build. Generally, the things configured in .mvn/srcdeps.yaml tend to be quite stable - it is basically just mapping from GAVs to their respective git URLs. Git URLs do not change often. It is true that dependency artifacts come and go, but as long as their groupIds are selected reasonably (one groupId occurs in not more than one git repo) the mapping itself can be quite stable over time too. Thanks, Peter >> On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >> Hi *, >> >> this is not new to those of you who attended my talk on the F2F >> 2016 in Brno. Let me explain the idea here again for all others who >> did not have a chance to be there. >> >> Srcdeps [1] is a tool to build Maven dependencies from their >> sources. With srcdeps, wildfly-core can depend on a specific commit >> of, e.g., undertow: >> >> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-aabbccd</version.io.undertow> >> >> >> where aabbccd is the git commit id to build when any undertow artifact >> is requested during the build of wildfly-core. >> >> [1] describes in detail, how it works. >> >> The main advantage of srcdeps is that changes in components can be >> integrated and tested in wildfly-core immediately after they are >> committed to a public component branch. There is no need to wait >> for the component release. >> >> Here in the WildFly family of projects, it is often the case that >> something needs to be fixed in a component, but the verification >> (using bug reproducer, or integration test) is possible only at the >> level of wildfly or wildfly-core. Engineers typically work with >> snapshots locally, but when their changes need to get shared (CI, >> reviews) in a reproducible manner, snapshots cannot be used >> anymore. In such situations a source dependency come in handy: it >> is very easy to share and it is as reproducible as a Maven build >> from a specific commit can be. All CIs and reviewers can work with >> it, because all source dependency compilation is done under the >> hood by Maven. >> >> Developers working on changes that span over multiple >> interdependent git repos can thus get feedback (i-tests, reviews) >> quickly without waiting for releases of components. >> >> Srcdeps emerged in the Hawkular family of projects to solve exactly >> this kind of situation and is in use there since around October >> 2015. >> >> When I said there is no need to wait for releases of components, I >> did not mean that we can get rid of component releases altogether. >> Clearly, we cannot, because i.a. for any tooling uninformed about >> how srcdeps work, those source dependencies would simply be >> non-resolvable from public Maven repositories. So, before releasing >> the dependent component (such as wildfly-core) all its dependencies >> need to be released. To enforce this, srcdeps is by default >> configured to make the release fail, as long as there are source >> dependencies. >> >> I have sent a PR introducing srcdeps to wildfly-core: >> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122 To get a feeling >> how it works, checkout the branch, switch to e.g. >> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd</version.io.undertow> >> (that happens to be the commit id of the 1.4.8.Final tag) and >> build wildfly-core as usual with "mvn clean install". You'll see in >> the build log that undertow is being cloned to >> ~/.m2/srcdeps/io/undertow and that it is built there. After the >> build, check that the >> 1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd >> version of Undertow got installed to your local Maven repo (usually >> ~/m2/repository/io/undertow/undertow-core ) >> >> Are there any questions or comments? >> >> [1] https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven#srcdeps-maven >> >> Thanks, >> >> Peter >> >> P.S.: I will be talking about srcdeps on Saturday 2017-01-28 at >> 14:30 at DevConf Brno. >> _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing >> list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

I agree with Brian. PR with SRC dependency *should not* be merged to master branch, that would create problems down the road. You can use other branch as base for such merges and related CI

Perhaps rather than a profile in the consuming project as Brian mentions, it should be disabled in srcdeps itself by default? Something along the lines that when its dependency resolution mechanism is hit, it fails unless -Dsrcdeps.enabled is passed in. Of course there is still a risk that someone adds that property to the pom by accident. Also how does this work for nested projects? Say we add this to WildFly full, and I want to test WildFly with to something which is brought in by wildfly-core (e.g. undertow, Elytron etc.). How would that work?

On 26 Jan 2017, at 11:37, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On 2017-01-26 11:46, Juraci Paixão Kröhling wrote: > On 01/26/2017 11:25 AM, Kabir Khan wrote: >> Perhaps rather than a profile in the consuming project as Brian mentions, it should be disabled in srcdeps itself by default? Something along the lines that when its dependency resolution mechanism is hit, it fails unless -Dsrcdeps.enabled is passed in. Of course there is still a risk that someone adds that property to the pom by accident. Not sure what would be the purpose of making srcdeps opt-in? - To allow CI and reviews, but to prevent merging?

Well, could you tell me first what is wrong with merging source dependencies?

>> Also how does this work for nested projects? Say we add this to WildFly full, and I want to test WildFly with to something which is brought in by wildfly-core (e.g. undertow, Elytron etc.). How would that work? > > It works quite nicely. I remember seeing 3 levels of nesting and I'm > sure it could have even more. > > It does delay the main build, though, as srcdeps builds the dependencies > on demand. It means that the first local build of "wildfly-core" that > depends on "elytron:1.2.3-src-abc123" will also build Elytron's revision > "abc123". Yes, as Juca said, running a build of project A that has a source dependency B, the build of B can trigger yet another build of its own source dependency C. Perhaps I should note that the dependency builds run with -DskipTests by default so that they finish faster. For dependencies known to use checkstyle, license plugin or similar, their builds can be configured to skip those too to run even faster, as I do e.g. here https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122/commits/65326ef4ff6abc5... Further, once a source dependency is built, it is installed to Maven local repository and re-used from there for all subsequent builds that require it. A source dependency thus makes just the first build slower. The local git repositories are kept too and therefore only the first clone takes long. All subsequent dependency builds use just fetch and reset. -- P

On 2017-01-26 12:51, Kabir Khan wrote: > >> On 26 Jan 2017, at 11:37, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On 2017-01-26 11:46, Juraci Paixão Kröhling wrote: >>> On 01/26/2017 11:25 AM, Kabir Khan wrote: >>>> Perhaps rather than a profile in the consuming project as Brian >>>> mentions, it should be disabled in srcdeps itself by default? Something >>>> along the lines that when its dependency resolution mechanism is hit, >>>> it fails unless -Dsrcdeps.enabled is passed in. Of course there is >>>> still a risk that someone adds that property to the pom by accident. >> >> Not sure what would be the purpose of making srcdeps opt-in? - To allow CI >> and reviews, but to prevent merging? > Yes, or rather it would fail our default CI, apart from runs where the opt > in happens explicitly, which will help with accidentally merging. >> Well, could you tell me first what is wrong with merging source >> dependencies? > Perhaps that is fine for some projects/branches, but for WildFly(-core) > master we want proper released maven artifacts. Yes, I see your preference, but I do not see clearly why you want to ban source dependencies from master.

> I've had a quick look at http://maven.apache.org/xsd/core-extensions-1.0.0.xsd but there doesn't seem to be a way to pass in any config properties to extensions.xml, but perhaps something could be added to the yaml so you can set a policy there. It still runs the risk of getting merged though :) Yes, extensions.xml does not allow for passing any config params to extensions. Srcdeps.yaml would be a better place for such an option. I can add it once there is enough consensus to go that way. -- P >> >>>> Also how does this work for nested projects? Say we add this to WildFly >>>> full, and I want to test WildFly with to something which is brought in >>>> by wildfly-core (e.g. undertow, Elytron etc.). How would that work? >>> >>> It works quite nicely. I remember seeing 3 levels of nesting and I'm >>> sure it could have even more. >>> >>> It does delay the main build, though, as srcdeps builds the dependencies >>> on demand. It means that the first local build of "wildfly-core" that >>> depends on "elytron:1.2.3-src-abc123" will also build Elytron's revision >>> "abc123". >> >> Yes, as Juca said, running a build of project A that has a source >> dependency B, the build of B can trigger yet another build of its own >> source dependency C. >> >> Perhaps I should note that the dependency builds run with -DskipTests by >> default so that they finish faster. For dependencies known to use >> checkstyle, license plugin or similar, their builds can be configured to >> skip those too to run even faster, as I do e.g. here >> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122/commits/65326ef4ff6abc5... >> >> Further, once a source dependency is built, it is installed to Maven local >> repository and re-used from there for all subsequent builds that require >> it. A source dependency thus makes just the first build slower. >> The local git repositories are kept too and therefore only the first clone >> takes long. All subsequent dependency builds use just fetch and reset. >> >> -- P >> > _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

On Jan 26, 2017, at 2:54 AM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hi Brian, thanks for your comments, more inline... On 2017-01-26 02:02, Brian Stansberry wrote: > My only concerns with this would relate to comitting this kind of src > dependency to the poms in the main branches in the widlfly/wildfly > and wildfly/wildfly-core repos. We’ve managed to survive up to now > with little or no need for that kind of thing, so until we get used > to using this in other ways IMHO we should follow the KISS principle > and forbid that. Maybe I overestimate the amount of changes that span over multiple git repos. Maybe you in the Core team do not do this often. But for us in the Sustaining Engineering Team, this is quite a typical situation. A substantial part of the reports from customers come with a description how to reproduce on the whole server, but they need to be fixed in a component. Having srcdeps would make the CP process simpler and faster, allowing us to uncover the conflicts and regressions earlier.

> A trick is avoiding doing that by mistake; i.e. a PR is sent up with > a SRC dependency to get CI or review and accidentally gets merged. Oh, I am just realizing I have not said anything about merging. I actually do want to propose that commits with source dependencies get merged to e.g. wildfly-core master as early as possible. Those are the key points of Continuous Integration: get feedback quickly, and merge as soon as possible. This is exactly what Hawkular is doing since more than a year.

> But I suppose that’s not the end of the world, so long as the release > process will eventually detect it and fail. Yes, source dependencies on a stable branch do not harm. They just need to be avoided in releases (for which srcdeps offers technical means).

> Can making srcdeps fail (or just disabling it) be turned on via a > maven profile? With that we could set up such a profile and turn it > on in CI jobs that are testing branches where it’s forbidden (e.g. > the nightly builds of master.) Yes, the feature is called "failWith profiles" and can be configured in .mvn/srcdeps.yaml, like here in this srcdeps quickstart: https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven/blob/master/srcdeps-maven-quicks... There is also "failWith properties" and "failWith goals". It is documented here: https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-core/blob/master/doc/srcdeps.yaml#L130 By default there is failWith: {goals: release:prepare, release:perform}. Projects that do not use the release plugin can set e.g. failWith: {goals: deploy:deploy} or whatever else distinguishes their releases.

> Oh, one other concern — how robust is this in the face of poor > maintenance? I see a lot of boilerplate in that .mvn/srcdeps.yaml. Which parts are boilerpate?

> If > that gets out of date or something is the only effect that using a > src dependency for the affected item doesn't work? Yes, I think so. As long as the .mvn/srcdeps.yaml file is syntactically correct, any misconfiguration there should not have any other effect than eventually breaking an embedded build. Generally, the things configured in .mvn/srcdeps.yaml tend to be quite stable - it is basically just mapping from GAVs to their respective git URLs. Git URLs do not change often. It is true that dependency artifacts come and go, but as long as their groupIds are selected reasonably (one groupId occurs in not more than one git repo) the mapping itself can be quite stable over time too.

Thanks, Peter > >> On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >> Hi *, >> >> this is not new to those of you who attended my talk on the F2F >> 2016 in Brno. Let me explain the idea here again for all others who >> did not have a chance to be there. >> >> Srcdeps [1] is a tool to build Maven dependencies from their >> sources. With srcdeps, wildfly-core can depend on a specific commit >> of, e.g., undertow: >> >> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-aabbccd</version.io.undertow> >> >> >> where aabbccd is the git commit id to build when any undertow artifact >> is requested during the build of wildfly-core. >> >> [1] describes in detail, how it works. >> >> The main advantage of srcdeps is that changes in components can be >> integrated and tested in wildfly-core immediately after they are >> committed to a public component branch. There is no need to wait >> for the component release. >> >> Here in the WildFly family of projects, it is often the case that >> something needs to be fixed in a component, but the verification >> (using bug reproducer, or integration test) is possible only at the >> level of wildfly or wildfly-core. Engineers typically work with >> snapshots locally, but when their changes need to get shared (CI, >> reviews) in a reproducible manner, snapshots cannot be used >> anymore. In such situations a source dependency come in handy: it >> is very easy to share and it is as reproducible as a Maven build >> from a specific commit can be. All CIs and reviewers can work with >> it, because all source dependency compilation is done under the >> hood by Maven. >> >> Developers working on changes that span over multiple >> interdependent git repos can thus get feedback (i-tests, reviews) >> quickly without waiting for releases of components. >> >> Srcdeps emerged in the Hawkular family of projects to solve exactly >> this kind of situation and is in use there since around October >> 2015. >> >> When I said there is no need to wait for releases of components, I >> did not mean that we can get rid of component releases altogether. >> Clearly, we cannot, because i.a. for any tooling uninformed about >> how srcdeps work, those source dependencies would simply be >> non-resolvable from public Maven repositories. So, before releasing >> the dependent component (such as wildfly-core) all its dependencies >> need to be released. To enforce this, srcdeps is by default >> configured to make the release fail, as long as there are source >> dependencies. >> >> I have sent a PR introducing srcdeps to wildfly-core: >> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122 To get a feeling >> how it works, checkout the branch, switch to e.g. >> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd</version.io.undertow> >> (that happens to be the commit id of the 1.4.8.Final tag) and >> build wildfly-core as usual with "mvn clean install". You'll see in >> the build log that undertow is being cloned to >> ~/.m2/srcdeps/io/undertow and that it is built there. After the >> build, check that the >> 1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd >> version of Undertow got installed to your local Maven repo (usually >> ~/m2/repository/io/undertow/undertow-core ) >> >> Are there any questions or comments? >> >> [1] https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven#srcdeps-maven >> >> Thanks, >> >> Peter >> >> P.S.: I will be talking about srcdeps on Saturday 2017-01-28 at >> 14:30 at DevConf Brno. >> _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing >> list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >

On Jan 26, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On 2017-01-26 15:44, Brian Stansberry wrote: > There’s been a lot of discussion overnight, but I’ll reply to this one directly since my answers better align with your questions here. :) > >> On Jan 26, 2017, at 2:54 AM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, thanks for your comments, more inline... >> >> On 2017-01-26 02:02, Brian Stansberry wrote: >>> My only concerns with this would relate to comitting this kind of src >>> dependency to the poms in the main branches in the widlfly/wildfly >>> and wildfly/wildfly-core repos. We’ve managed to survive up to now >>> with little or no need for that kind of thing, so until we get used >>> to using this in other ways IMHO we should follow the KISS principle >>> and forbid that. >> >> Maybe I overestimate the amount of changes that span over multiple git repos. Maybe you in the Core team do not do this often. But for us in the Sustaining Engineering Team, this is quite a typical situation. A substantial part of the reports from customers come with a description how to reproduce on the whole server, but they need to be fixed in a component. Having srcdeps would make the CP process simpler and faster, allowing us to uncover the conflicts and regressions earlier. > > I don’t see how merging to the main branches is required to get this benefit. Git topic branches are fully sharable and CI jobs against them are easily done. All CI tests of pull requests are tests of topic branches. Yes, for me as the submitter of the PR, it is nice to get the feedback from the CI and a review early, even before the component is released, but it is quite bothersome to have to revisit the PR again once the component gets released and rebase (in case there there are conflicts) and either upgrade to the released component version or remove the upgrade change (if the upgrade was merged separately). As long as my PR is not merged, my changes are not binding for the rest of the team. I want my PR to get merged as fast as possible and make others care that their changes are compatible with mine. I want to happily forget about the PR as soon as possible and pick a new task :)

> But, in any case perhaps you’ve seen clear need for merging to the main branches with the EAP CP branches. I haven’t seen it in WildFly / WildFly Core. I deliberately used specific repo names in my last comment to try and scope it. ;) My reasons for merging there in EAP CP branches are the same as here in the community branches: it is better for PR submitters to merge as early as possible to avoid conflicts, subsequent PR edits and to keep the list of open tasks short. > Note I’m not saying we should disallow PRs with src deps in the pom. We should just disallow merging until those are replaced. Yes, I understand that and I appreciate that. That would be a progress too. >>> A trick is avoiding doing that by mistake; i.e. a PR is sent up with >>> a SRC dependency to get CI or review and accidentally gets merged. >> >> Oh, I am just realizing I have not said anything about merging. I actually do want to propose that commits with source dependencies get merged to e.g. wildfly-core master as early as possible. Those are the key points of Continuous Integration: get feedback quickly, and merge as soon as possible. This is exactly what Hawkular is doing since more than a year. > > We regularly produce releases (ideally weekly for WildFly Core), often at short notice under pressure. Allowing merging of changes that are not acceptable for release increases the risk and effort required to do that, since now we have to scan for src deps and figure out how to get them out of the build. Perhaps needing assistance from whoever added the src dep and the lead of relevant component, both of whom are on the other side of the world asleep. (This is a real issue since we often do releases on Friday afternoon US time or Monday morning European time.) We already have too much risk and effort doing releases so adding more will need a really strong justification. This sounds as a valid concern. I must admit I know little about how you plan and perform the releases of wildfly-core, wildfly and of the components in the community. Knowing how complex the graph of WF components is, I am far from underestimating any manual release efforts or efforts to setup a CI jobs to do that automagically. I'll have to gather more info about how you work. >>> But I suppose that’s not the end of the world, so long as the release >>> process will eventually detect it and fail. >> >> Yes, source dependencies on a stable branch do not harm. They just need to be avoided in releases (for which srcdeps offers technical means). > > They do do harm as they mean the branch is no longer releasable. It’s not end-of-the-world harm but it’s harm. Well, I naivelly thought, that the components are obligated to provide a release, say, one day before a planned wildfly-core release and send a PRs that would then sweep out all source dependencies. And TBH, I did not think "releasable at any time" is important in wildfly-core. "Releasable once a week" still sounds good enough to me :)

>>> Can making srcdeps fail (or just disabling it) be turned on via a >>> maven profile? With that we could set up such a profile and turn it >>> on in CI jobs that are testing branches where it’s forbidden (e.g. >>> the nightly builds of master.) >> >> Yes, the feature is called "failWith profiles" and can be configured in .mvn/srcdeps.yaml, like here in this srcdeps quickstart: https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven/blob/master/srcdeps-maven-quicks... >> There is also "failWith properties" and "failWith goals". It is documented here: https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-core/blob/master/doc/srcdeps.yaml#L130 >> By default there is failWith: {goals: release:prepare, release:perform}. Projects that do not use the release plugin can set e.g. failWith: {goals: deploy:deploy} or whatever else distinguishes their releases. >> > > Thanks. > >>> Oh, one other concern — how robust is this in the face of poor >>> maintenance? I see a lot of boilerplate in that .mvn/srcdeps.yaml. >> >> Which parts are boilerpate? > > All of it. :) > > I’m not using that word as an attack. I’m just saying it’s extra text that needs to be maintained, and since it’s separate from the usual place similar text occurs (the poms) it is more likely to diverge. OK, now I know what you mean :) You are right that poms can diverge from srcdeps.yaml. >>> If >>> that gets out of date or something is the only effect that using a >>> src dependency for the affected item doesn't work? >> >> Yes, I think so. As long as the .mvn/srcdeps.yaml file is syntactically correct, any misconfiguration there should not have any other effect than eventually breaking an embedded build. >> >> Generally, the things configured in .mvn/srcdeps.yaml tend to be quite stable - it is basically just mapping from GAVs to their respective git URLs. Git URLs do not change often. It is true that dependency artifacts come and go, but as long as their groupIds are selected reasonably (one groupId occurs in not more than one git repo) the mapping itself can be quite stable over time too. > > Yeah, that’s true. Where this file would be more likely to go unmaintained is adding new entries or cleaning out old ones. But the latter is just noise and if the only harm of the former is a srcdep can’t be used for that lib, then that will naturally get handled by whoever wants to use the srcdep. Yes, exactly. Thanks, Peter >> >> Thanks, >> >> Peter >> >>> >>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi *, >>>> >>>> this is not new to those of you who attended my talk on the F2F >>>> 2016 in Brno. Let me explain the idea here again for all others who >>>> did not have a chance to be there. >>>> >>>> Srcdeps [1] is a tool to build Maven dependencies from their >>>> sources. With srcdeps, wildfly-core can depend on a specific commit >>>> of, e.g., undertow: >>>> >>>> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-aabbccd</version.io.undertow> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> where aabbccd is the git commit id to build when any undertow artifact >>>> is requested during the build of wildfly-core. >>>> >>>> [1] describes in detail, how it works. >>>> >>>> The main advantage of srcdeps is that changes in components can be >>>> integrated and tested in wildfly-core immediately after they are >>>> committed to a public component branch. There is no need to wait >>>> for the component release. >>>> >>>> Here in the WildFly family of projects, it is often the case that >>>> something needs to be fixed in a component, but the verification >>>> (using bug reproducer, or integration test) is possible only at the >>>> level of wildfly or wildfly-core. Engineers typically work with >>>> snapshots locally, but when their changes need to get shared (CI, >>>> reviews) in a reproducible manner, snapshots cannot be used >>>> anymore. In such situations a source dependency come in handy: it >>>> is very easy to share and it is as reproducible as a Maven build >>>> from a specific commit can be. All CIs and reviewers can work with >>>> it, because all source dependency compilation is done under the >>>> hood by Maven. >>>> >>>> Developers working on changes that span over multiple >>>> interdependent git repos can thus get feedback (i-tests, reviews) >>>> quickly without waiting for releases of components. >>>> >>>> Srcdeps emerged in the Hawkular family of projects to solve exactly >>>> this kind of situation and is in use there since around October >>>> 2015. >>>> >>>> When I said there is no need to wait for releases of components, I >>>> did not mean that we can get rid of component releases altogether. >>>> Clearly, we cannot, because i.a. for any tooling uninformed about >>>> how srcdeps work, those source dependencies would simply be >>>> non-resolvable from public Maven repositories. So, before releasing >>>> the dependent component (such as wildfly-core) all its dependencies >>>> need to be released. To enforce this, srcdeps is by default >>>> configured to make the release fail, as long as there are source >>>> dependencies. >>>> >>>> I have sent a PR introducing srcdeps to wildfly-core: >>>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122 To get a feeling >>>> how it works, checkout the branch, switch to e.g. >>>> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd</version.io.undertow> >>>> (that happens to be the commit id of the 1.4.8.Final tag) and >>>> build wildfly-core as usual with "mvn clean install". You'll see in >>>> the build log that undertow is being cloned to >>>> ~/.m2/srcdeps/io/undertow and that it is built there. After the >>>> build, check that the >>>> 1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd >>>> version of Undertow got installed to your local Maven repo (usually >>>> ~/m2/repository/io/undertow/undertow-core ) >>>> >>>> Are there any questions or comments? >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven#srcdeps-maven >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> P.S.: I will be talking about srcdeps on Saturday 2017-01-28 at >>>> 14:30 at DevConf Brno. >>>> _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing >>>> list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>> >> >

Thanks everybody for the feedback! Let me try to sum up the results of the discussion so far: (1) Nobody except for me wants commits with source dependencies in stable branches (such as master or 2.x in wildfly-core). I fully accept that the ability to release anytime would go away with source dependency merges and I thus give up in this point as long as the "release anytime" requirement will be there. (2) There seems to exist some (enough?) agreement that source dependencies could be allowed in pull requests. Such pull requests would be there to allow fast feedback from the CI and reviewers, even before the release of the dependency. But given (1), such PRs would have to be upgraded to a proper dependency release before merging. (3) If nobody vetoes (2), I am going to implement a failWithout configuration option in srcdeps.yaml that will allow for making srcdeps resolution opt-in (e.g. via -Dsrcdeps.enabled) for those CI jobs that build from PRs but will keep all other srcdeps builds failing. Having (3) will not prevent merges of PRs with source dependencies directly, but will at least make the after-merge CI job fail so that the maintainer of the branch is informed very quickly that something bad happened. (4) I'd also add some sort of code (probably a Maven Mojo) to srcdeps that would allow to figure out for a given Maven project if it uses source dependencies. This could be used to label PRs so that the gatekeeper sees clearly that the given PR has source dependencies. Thanks, Peter On 2017-01-26 19:11, Brian Stansberry wrote: > >> On Jan 26, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On 2017-01-26 15:44, Brian Stansberry wrote: >>> There’s been a lot of discussion overnight, but I’ll reply to this >>> one directly since my answers better align with your questions here. :) >>> >>>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 2:54 AM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Brian, thanks for your comments, more inline... >>>> >>>> On 2017-01-26 02:02, Brian Stansberry wrote: >>>>> My only concerns with this would relate to comitting this kind of src >>>>> dependency to the poms in the main branches in the widlfly/wildfly >>>>> and wildfly/wildfly-core repos. We’ve managed to survive up to now >>>>> with little or no need for that kind of thing, so until we get used >>>>> to using this in other ways IMHO we should follow the KISS principle >>>>> and forbid that. >>>> >>>> Maybe I overestimate the amount of changes that span over multiple >>>> git repos. Maybe you in the Core team do not do this often. But for >>>> us in the Sustaining Engineering Team, this is quite a typical >>>> situation. A substantial part of the reports from customers come >>>> with a description how to reproduce on the whole server, but they >>>> need to be fixed in a component. Having srcdeps would make the CP >>>> process simpler and faster, allowing us to uncover the conflicts >>>> and regressions earlier. >>> >>> I don’t see how merging to the main branches is required to get this >>> benefit. Git topic branches are fully sharable and CI jobs against >>> them are easily done. All CI tests of pull requests are tests of >>> topic branches. >> >> Yes, for me as the submitter of the PR, it is nice to get the >> feedback from the CI and a review early, even before the component is >> released, but it is quite bothersome to have to revisit the PR again >> once the component gets released and rebase (in case there there are >> conflicts) and either upgrade to the released component version or >> remove the upgrade change (if the upgrade was merged separately). >> >> As long as my PR is not merged, my changes are not binding for the >> rest of the team. I want my PR to get merged as fast as possible and >> make others care that their changes are compatible with mine. I want >> to happily forget about the PR as soon as possible and pick a new >> task :) >> > > You’ve convinced me! Convinced me that we shouldn’t allow this. :D > > We don’t have a role analogous to the “release coordinator” used with > EAP CPs, i.e. someone whose primary responsibility is coordinating to > make sure that the untidy pieces get tidied. Most of our non-CR/Final > releases are done as side tasks by people who are stealing time from > other tasks. They need to be simple and mechanical. We also have a far > greater volume of changes to manage than EAP CPs do. A process based > on merging half the necessary change and then letting the issue owner > walk away and assume someone else is going to come tidy up is a recipe > for disaster. > >>> But, in any case perhaps you’ve seen clear need for merging to the >>> main branches with the EAP CP branches. I haven’t seen it in WildFly >>> / WildFly Core. I deliberately used specific repo names in my last >>> comment to try and scope it. ;) >> >> My reasons for merging there in EAP CP branches are the same as here >> in the community branches: it is better for PR submitters to merge as >> early as possible to avoid conflicts, subsequent PR edits and to keep >> the list of open tasks short. >> >>> Note I’m not saying we should disallow PRs with src deps in the pom. >>> We should just disallow merging until those are replaced. >> >> Yes, I understand that and I appreciate that. That would be a >> progress too. >> >>>>> A trick is avoiding doing that by mistake; i.e. a PR is sent up with >>>>> a SRC dependency to get CI or review and accidentally gets merged. >>>> >>>> Oh, I am just realizing I have not said anything about merging. I >>>> actually do want to propose that commits with source dependencies >>>> get merged to e.g. wildfly-core master as early as possible. Those >>>> are the key points of Continuous Integration: get feedback quickly, >>>> and merge as soon as possible. This is exactly what Hawkular is >>>> doing since more than a year. >>> >>> We regularly produce releases (ideally weekly for WildFly Core), >>> often at short notice under pressure. Allowing merging of changes >>> that are not acceptable for release increases the risk and effort >>> required to do that, since now we have to scan for src deps and >>> figure out how to get them out of the build. Perhaps needing >>> assistance from whoever added the src dep and the lead of relevant >>> component, both of whom are on the other side of the world asleep. >>> (This is a real issue since we often do releases on Friday afternoon >>> US time or Monday morning European time.) We already have too much >>> risk and effort doing releases so adding more will need a really >>> strong justification. >> >> This sounds as a valid concern. I must admit I know little about how >> you plan and perform the releases of wildfly-core, wildfly and of the >> components in the community. Knowing how complex the graph of WF >> components is, I am far from underestimating any manual release >> efforts or efforts to setup a CI jobs to do that automagically. I'll >> have to gather more info about how you work. >> >>>>> But I suppose that’s not the end of the world, so long as the release >>>>> process will eventually detect it and fail. >>>> >>>> Yes, source dependencies on a stable branch do not harm. They just >>>> need to be avoided in releases (for which srcdeps offers technical >>>> means). >>> >>> They do do harm as they mean the branch is no longer releasable. >>> It’s not end-of-the-world harm but it’s harm. >> >> Well, I naivelly thought, that the components are obligated to >> provide a release, say, one day before a planned wildfly-core release >> and send a PRs that would then sweep out all source dependencies. And >> TBH, I did not think "releasable at any time" is important in >> wildfly-core. "Releasable once a week" still sounds good enough to me :) > > Unfortunately, it’s not. > >> >>>>> Can making srcdeps fail (or just disabling it) be turned on via a >>>>> maven profile? With that we could set up such a profile and turn it >>>>> on in CI jobs that are testing branches where it’s forbidden (e.g. >>>>> the nightly builds of master.) >>>> >>>> Yes, the feature is called "failWith profiles" and can be >>>> configured in .mvn/srcdeps.yaml, like here in this srcdeps >>>> quickstart: >>>> https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven/blob/master/srcdeps-maven-quicks... >>>> >>>> There is also "failWith properties" and "failWith goals". It is >>>> documented here: >>>> https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-core/blob/master/doc/srcdeps.yaml#L130 >>>> >>>> By default there is failWith: {goals: release:prepare, >>>> release:perform}. Projects that do not use the release plugin can >>>> set e.g. failWith: {goals: deploy:deploy} or whatever else >>>> distinguishes their releases. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>>>> Oh, one other concern — how robust is this in the face of poor >>>>> maintenance? I see a lot of boilerplate in that .mvn/srcdeps.yaml. >>>> >>>> Which parts are boilerpate? >>> >>> All of it. :) >>> >>> I’m not using that word as an attack. I’m just saying it’s extra >>> text that needs to be maintained, and since it’s separate from the >>> usual place similar text occurs (the poms) it is more likely to >>> diverge. >> >> OK, now I know what you mean :) You are right that poms can diverge >> from srcdeps.yaml. >> >>>>> If >>>>> that gets out of date or something is the only effect that using a >>>>> src dependency for the affected item doesn't work? >>>> >>>> Yes, I think so. As long as the .mvn/srcdeps.yaml file is >>>> syntactically correct, any misconfiguration there should not have >>>> any other effect than eventually breaking an embedded build. >>>> >>>> Generally, the things configured in .mvn/srcdeps.yaml tend to be >>>> quite stable - it is basically just mapping from GAVs to their >>>> respective git URLs. Git URLs do not change often. It is true that >>>> dependency artifacts come and go, but as long as their groupIds are >>>> selected reasonably (one groupId occurs in not more than one git >>>> repo) the mapping itself can be quite stable over time too. >>> >>> Yeah, that’s true. Where this file would be more likely to go >>> unmaintained is adding new entries or cleaning out old ones. But the >>> latter is just noise and if the only harm of the former is a srcdep >>> can’t be used for that lib, then that will naturally get handled by >>> whoever wants to use the srcdep. >> >> Yes, exactly. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Peter >> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi *, >>>>>> >>>>>> this is not new to those of you who attended my talk on the F2F >>>>>> 2016 in Brno. Let me explain the idea here again for all others who >>>>>> did not have a chance to be there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Srcdeps [1] is a tool to build Maven dependencies from their >>>>>> sources. With srcdeps, wildfly-core can depend on a specific commit >>>>>> of, e.g., undertow: >>>>>> >>>>>> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-aabbccd</version.io.undertow> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> where aabbccd is the git commit id to build when any undertow artifact >>>>>> is requested during the build of wildfly-core. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] describes in detail, how it works. >>>>>> >>>>>> The main advantage of srcdeps is that changes in components can be >>>>>> integrated and tested in wildfly-core immediately after they are >>>>>> committed to a public component branch. There is no need to wait >>>>>> for the component release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here in the WildFly family of projects, it is often the case that >>>>>> something needs to be fixed in a component, but the verification >>>>>> (using bug reproducer, or integration test) is possible only at the >>>>>> level of wildfly or wildfly-core. Engineers typically work with >>>>>> snapshots locally, but when their changes need to get shared (CI, >>>>>> reviews) in a reproducible manner, snapshots cannot be used >>>>>> anymore. In such situations a source dependency come in handy: it >>>>>> is very easy to share and it is as reproducible as a Maven build >>>>>> from a specific commit can be. All CIs and reviewers can work with >>>>>> it, because all source dependency compilation is done under the >>>>>> hood by Maven. >>>>>> >>>>>> Developers working on changes that span over multiple >>>>>> interdependent git repos can thus get feedback (i-tests, reviews) >>>>>> quickly without waiting for releases of components. >>>>>> >>>>>> Srcdeps emerged in the Hawkular family of projects to solve exactly >>>>>> this kind of situation and is in use there since around October >>>>>> 2015. >>>>>> >>>>>> When I said there is no need to wait for releases of components, I >>>>>> did not mean that we can get rid of component releases altogether. >>>>>> Clearly, we cannot, because i.a. for any tooling uninformed about >>>>>> how srcdeps work, those source dependencies would simply be >>>>>> non-resolvable from public Maven repositories. So, before releasing >>>>>> the dependent component (such as wildfly-core) all its dependencies >>>>>> need to be released. To enforce this, srcdeps is by default >>>>>> configured to make the release fail, as long as there are source >>>>>> dependencies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have sent a PR introducing srcdeps to wildfly-core: >>>>>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122 To get a feeling >>>>>> how it works, checkout the branch, switch to e.g. >>>>>> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd</version.io.undertow> >>>>>> >>>>>> (that happens to be the commit id of the 1.4.8.Final tag) and >>>>>> build wildfly-core as usual with "mvn clean install". You'll see in >>>>>> the build log that undertow is being cloned to >>>>>> ~/.m2/srcdeps/io/undertow and that it is built there. After the >>>>>> build, check that the >>>>>> 1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd >>>>>> version of Undertow got installed to your local Maven repo (usually >>>>>> ~/m2/repository/io/undertow/undertow-core ) >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there any questions or comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven#srcdeps-maven >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S.: I will be talking about srcdeps on Saturday 2017-01-28 at >>>>>> 14:30 at DevConf Brno. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing >>>>>> list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >

On 26/01/17 01:02, Brian Stansberry wrote: > My only concerns with this would relate to comitting this kind of src dependency to the poms in the main branches in the widlfly/wildfly and wildfly/wildfly-core repos. We’ve managed to survive up to now with little or no need for that kind of thing, so until we get used to using this in other ways IMHO we should follow the KISS principle and forbid that. I like the idea of this being available for teams working on a topic branch but also think we should avoid this kind of dependency in master - engineers are continually running builds so I don't think we should add additional source checkouts and builds.

I know Elytron has caused huge amounts of instability but generally I think we want these branches in a state where we could tag if we needed to.

When these downloaded builds are executed are the test cases within also executed?

> A trick is avoiding doing that by mistake; i.e. a PR is sent up with a SRC dependency to get CI or review and accidentally gets merged. But I suppose that’s not the end of the world, so long as the release process will eventually detect it and fail. Merging topic branches these temporary SHAs would be in the history but maybe the PR CI runs could verify they are not present in the final merge. > Can making srcdeps fail (or just disabling it) be turned on via a maven profile? With that we could set up such a profile and turn it on in CI jobs that are testing branches where it’s forbidden (e.g. the nightly builds of master.) > > Oh, one other concern — how robust is this in the face of poor maintenance? I see a lot of boilerplate in that .mvn/srcdeps.yaml. If that gets out of date or something is the only effect that using a src dependency for the affected item doesn't work? I think that file would be better almost empty

but not hidden.

Thinking about the topic branch development, within the Elytron team we are using some SNAPSHOTs from the official repos and at times we have forked projects into our incubator and developed against SNAPSHOTs from those

as as you select the SHA for the build you would also need to select which repository you really want.

>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi *, >> >> this is not new to those of you who attended my talk on the F2F 2016 in >> Brno. Let me explain the idea here again for all others who did not have >> a chance to be there. >> >> Srcdeps [1] is a tool to build Maven dependencies from their sources. >> With srcdeps, wildfly-core can depend on a specific commit of, e.g., >> undertow: >> >> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-aabbccd</version.io.undertow> >> >> where aabbccd is the git commit id to build when any undertow artifact >> is requested during the build of wildfly-core. >> >> [1] describes in detail, how it works. >> >> The main advantage of srcdeps is that changes in components can be >> integrated and tested in wildfly-core immediately after they are >> committed to a public component branch. There is no need to wait for the >> component release. >> >> Here in the WildFly family of projects, it is often the case that >> something needs to be fixed in a component, but the verification (using >> bug reproducer, or integration test) is possible only at the level of >> wildfly or wildfly-core. Engineers typically work with snapshots >> locally, but when their changes need to get shared (CI, reviews) in a >> reproducible manner, snapshots cannot be used anymore. >> In such situations a source dependency come in handy: it is very easy to >> share and it is as reproducible as a Maven build from a specific commit >> can be. All CIs and reviewers can work with it, because all source >> dependency compilation is done under the hood by Maven. >> >> Developers working on changes that span over multiple interdependent git >> repos can thus get feedback (i-tests, reviews) quickly without waiting >> for releases of components. >> >> Srcdeps emerged in the Hawkular family of projects to solve exactly this >> kind of situation and is in use there since around October 2015. >> >> When I said there is no need to wait for releases of components, I did >> not mean that we can get rid of component releases altogether. Clearly, >> we cannot, because i.a. for any tooling uninformed about how srcdeps >> work, those source dependencies would simply be non-resolvable from >> public Maven repositories. So, before releasing the dependent component >> (such as wildfly-core) all its dependencies need to be released. To >> enforce this, srcdeps is by default configured to make the release fail, >> as long as there are source dependencies. >> >> I have sent a PR introducing srcdeps to wildfly-core: >> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122 >> To get a feeling how it works, checkout the branch, switch to e.g. >> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd</version.io.undertow> >> (that happens to be the commit id of the 1.4.8.Final tag) >> and build wildfly-core as usual with "mvn clean install". You'll see in >> the build log that undertow is being cloned to ~/.m2/srcdeps/io/undertow >> and that it is built there. After the build, check that the >> 1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd >> version of Undertow got installed to your local Maven repo (usually >> ~/m2/repository/io/undertow/undertow-core ) >> >> Are there any questions or comments? >> >> [1] https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven#srcdeps-maven >> >> Thanks, >> >> Peter >> >> P.S.: I will be talking about srcdeps on Saturday 2017-01-28 at 14:30 at >> DevConf Brno. >> _______________________________________________ >> wildfly-dev mailing list >> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev > _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

On 26/01/17 12:42, Peter Palaga wrote: > Thanks for the comments, Darran, more inline... > > On 2017-01-26 12:40, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >> On 26/01/17 01:02, Brian Stansberry wrote: >>> My only concerns with this would relate to comitting this kind of src >>> dependency to the poms in the main branches in the widlfly/wildfly >>> and wildfly/wildfly-core repos. We’ve managed to survive up to now >>> with little or no need for that kind of thing, so until we get used >>> to using this in other ways IMHO we should follow the KISS principle >>> and forbid that. >> >> I like the idea of this being available for teams working on a topic >> branch but also think we should avoid this kind of dependency in master >> - engineers are continually running builds so I don't think we should >> add additional source checkouts and builds. > > So you also vote for having the support for source dependencies when the > e.g. the wildfly-core CI builds a PR that integrates a change in Elytron > or when a reviewer does the same, but such PRs should wait for a proper > release of the component, right? I think by the time we get to the PR stage engineers should have had an opportunity to discuss the proposed solution sufficiently that we shouldn't need a srcdep and should have been able to tag Elytron.

>> I know Elytron has caused huge amounts of instability but generally I >> think we want these branches in a state where we could tag if we >> needed to. > > "these branches" - you mean topic branches in a component (such as > Elytron) or in a consuming project (such as WF Core) or both? I think WildFly Core / master and WildFly / master are generally not supposed to be as unstable as we have made them recently. >> When these downloaded builds are executed are the test cases within also >> executed? > > The builds of source dependencies run with -DskipTests by default so > that they finish faster. An explicit per git repository setting in > srcdeps.yaml is needed if somebody wants a dependency build to run > without -DskipTests. > >>> A trick is avoiding doing that by mistake; i.e. a PR is sent up with >>> a SRC dependency to get CI or review and accidentally gets merged. >>> But I suppose that’s not the end of the world, so long as the release >>> process will eventually detect it and fail. >> >> Merging topic branches these temporary SHAs would be in the history but >> maybe the PR CI runs could verify they are not present in the final >> merge. >> >>> Can making srcdeps fail (or just disabling it) be turned on via a >>> maven profile? With that we could set up such a profile and turn it >>> on in CI jobs that are testing branches where it’s forbidden (e.g. >>> the nightly builds of master.) >>> >>> Oh, one other concern — how robust is this in the face of poor >>> maintenance? I see a lot of boilerplate in that .mvn/srcdeps.yaml. If >>> that gets out of date or something is the only effect that using a >>> src dependency for the affected item doesn't work? >> >> I think that file would be better almost empty > > The size of the srcdeps.yaml file depends on how many dependencies the > given project has and which of those are selected for the srcdeps > support. In the PR https://git.io/vMjUC , I have included only the > projects owned by us, excluding non-Maven and non-git projects. I am > open to discussion whether we should include or exclude more projects. > >> but not hidden. > > The .mvn directory was introduced by Maven 3.3.1. Maven reads > extensions.xml file from there and I found it rather natural to have > srcdeps.yaml file there too. What that means is that a file that can directly influence the outcome of a local build is hidden from the engineer. There are already quite a few things in out builds where when they go wrong we have to spend time tracking them down, having a hidden configuration may not help this.

>> Thinking about the topic branch development, within the Elytron team we >> are using some SNAPSHOTs from the official repos and at times we have >> forked projects into our incubator and developed against SNAPSHOTs from >> those > > Allowing SNAPSHOTs on any remote Maven repository leads to loosing > reproducibility of the builds of the dependent project. Srcdeps offers > much more reproducibility and portalbility over environments in such > situations. Yes I am saying in the development of the Elytron topic branches this could help a lot - but the assumptions as to which git repos we are using would be wrong. >> as as you select the SHA for the build you would also need to >> select which repository you really want. > > Yes, the mapping which dependencies are built from which git > repositories is defined in srcdeps.yaml. I see no problem in having one > git URL in one branch and having different git URL in another branch. Which I think as this is a file engineers could be editing to tweak their builds means it should not be hidden. > Thanks, > > Peter > >>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi *, >>>> >>>> this is not new to those of you who attended my talk on the F2F >>>> 2016 in >>>> Brno. Let me explain the idea here again for all others who did not >>>> have >>>> a chance to be there. >>>> >>>> Srcdeps [1] is a tool to build Maven dependencies from their sources. >>>> With srcdeps, wildfly-core can depend on a specific commit of, e.g., >>>> undertow: >>>> >>>> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-aabbccd</version.io.undertow> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> where aabbccd is the git commit id to build when any undertow artifact >>>> is requested during the build of wildfly-core. >>>> >>>> [1] describes in detail, how it works. >>>> >>>> The main advantage of srcdeps is that changes in components can be >>>> integrated and tested in wildfly-core immediately after they are >>>> committed to a public component branch. There is no need to wait for >>>> the >>>> component release. >>>> >>>> Here in the WildFly family of projects, it is often the case that >>>> something needs to be fixed in a component, but the verification >>>> (using >>>> bug reproducer, or integration test) is possible only at the level of >>>> wildfly or wildfly-core. Engineers typically work with snapshots >>>> locally, but when their changes need to get shared (CI, reviews) in a >>>> reproducible manner, snapshots cannot be used anymore. >>>> In such situations a source dependency come in handy: it is very >>>> easy to >>>> share and it is as reproducible as a Maven build from a specific >>>> commit >>>> can be. All CIs and reviewers can work with it, because all source >>>> dependency compilation is done under the hood by Maven. >>>> >>>> Developers working on changes that span over multiple interdependent >>>> git >>>> repos can thus get feedback (i-tests, reviews) quickly without waiting >>>> for releases of components. >>>> >>>> Srcdeps emerged in the Hawkular family of projects to solve exactly >>>> this >>>> kind of situation and is in use there since around October 2015. >>>> >>>> When I said there is no need to wait for releases of components, I did >>>> not mean that we can get rid of component releases altogether. >>>> Clearly, >>>> we cannot, because i.a. for any tooling uninformed about how srcdeps >>>> work, those source dependencies would simply be non-resolvable from >>>> public Maven repositories. So, before releasing the dependent >>>> component >>>> (such as wildfly-core) all its dependencies need to be released. To >>>> enforce this, srcdeps is by default configured to make the release >>>> fail, >>>> as long as there are source dependencies. >>>> >>>> I have sent a PR introducing srcdeps to wildfly-core: >>>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122 >>>> To get a feeling how it works, checkout the branch, switch to e.g. >>>> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd</version.io.undertow> >>>> >>>> >>>> (that happens to be the commit id of the 1.4.8.Final tag) >>>> and build wildfly-core as usual with "mvn clean install". You'll >>>> see in >>>> the build log that undertow is being cloned to >>>> ~/.m2/srcdeps/io/undertow >>>> and that it is built there. After the build, check that the >>>> 1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd >>>> version of Undertow got installed to your local Maven repo (usually >>>> ~/m2/repository/io/undertow/undertow-core ) >>>> >>>> Are there any questions or comments? >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven#srcdeps-maven >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> P.S.: I will be talking about srcdeps on Saturday 2017-01-28 at >>>> 14:30 at >>>> DevConf Brno. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> wildfly-dev mailing list >> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >> >

On 30/01/17 15:36, Peter Palaga wrote: > Hi Darran, inline... > > On 2017-01-26 13:56, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >> What that means is that a file that can directly influence the outcome >> of a local build is hidden from the engineer. There are already quite a >> few things in out builds where when they go wrong we have to spend time >> tracking them down, having a hidden configuration may not help this. > > If I heart this earlier, I'd most probably choose a non-hidden location. > I perhaps do not see this as a problem, because I configure each of my > Eclipse workspaces to show all .* resources because .mvn is not the only > important file that is hidden: there is also .gitignore, .gitattributes, > .travis.yml, .appveyor.yml and even .git and others that one wants to > open from time to time. > But now that srcdeps has some users, sorry, I do not think I find this > important enough to break backwards compatibility. But those files listed don't influence the local build. Regarding backwards compatibility, what backwards compatibility are you referring to as from what I understand the PRs into WildFly and WildFly Core have not been merged yet.

On 30 Jan 2017, at 15:36, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hi Darran, inline... On 2017-01-26 13:56, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > > > On 26/01/17 12:42, Peter Palaga wrote: >> Thanks for the comments, Darran, more inline... >> >> On 2017-01-26 12:40, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >>> On 26/01/17 01:02, Brian Stansberry wrote: >>>> My only concerns with this would relate to comitting this kind of src >>>> dependency to the poms in the main branches in the widlfly/wildfly >>>> and wildfly/wildfly-core repos. We’ve managed to survive up to now >>>> with little or no need for that kind of thing, so until we get used >>>> to using this in other ways IMHO we should follow the KISS principle >>>> and forbid that. >>> >>> I like the idea of this being available for teams working on a topic >>> branch but also think we should avoid this kind of dependency in master >>> - engineers are continually running builds so I don't think we should >>> add additional source checkouts and builds. >> >> So you also vote for having the support for source dependencies when the >> e.g. the wildfly-core CI builds a PR that integrates a change in Elytron >> or when a reviewer does the same, but such PRs should wait for a proper >> release of the component, right? > > I think by the time we get to the PR stage engineers should have had an > opportunity to discuss the proposed solution sufficiently that we > shouldn't need a srcdep and should have been able to tag Elytron. OK, thanks for explaining! >>> I know Elytron has caused huge amounts of instability but generally I >>> think we want these branches in a state where we could tag if we >>> needed to. >> >> "these branches" - you mean topic branches in a component (such as >> Elytron) or in a consuming project (such as WF Core) or both? > > I think WildFly Core / master and WildFly / master are generally not > supposed to be as unstable as we have made them recently. > >>> When these downloaded builds are executed are the test cases within also >>> executed? >> >> The builds of source dependencies run with -DskipTests by default so >> that they finish faster. An explicit per git repository setting in >> srcdeps.yaml is needed if somebody wants a dependency build to run >> without -DskipTests. >> >>>> A trick is avoiding doing that by mistake; i.e. a PR is sent up with >>>> a SRC dependency to get CI or review and accidentally gets merged. >>>> But I suppose that’s not the end of the world, so long as the release >>>> process will eventually detect it and fail. >>> >>> Merging topic branches these temporary SHAs would be in the history but >>> maybe the PR CI runs could verify they are not present in the final >>> merge. >>> >>>> Can making srcdeps fail (or just disabling it) be turned on via a >>>> maven profile? With that we could set up such a profile and turn it >>>> on in CI jobs that are testing branches where it’s forbidden (e.g. >>>> the nightly builds of master.) >>>> >>>> Oh, one other concern — how robust is this in the face of poor >>>> maintenance? I see a lot of boilerplate in that .mvn/srcdeps.yaml. If >>>> that gets out of date or something is the only effect that using a >>>> src dependency for the affected item doesn't work? >>> >>> I think that file would be better almost empty >> >> The size of the srcdeps.yaml file depends on how many dependencies the >> given project has and which of those are selected for the srcdeps >> support. In the PR https://git.io/vMjUC , I have included only the >> projects owned by us, excluding non-Maven and non-git projects. I am >> open to discussion whether we should include or exclude more projects. >> >>> but not hidden. >> >> The .mvn directory was introduced by Maven 3.3.1. Maven reads >> extensions.xml file from there and I found it rather natural to have >> srcdeps.yaml file there too. > > What that means is that a file that can directly influence the outcome > of a local build is hidden from the engineer. There are already quite a > few things in out builds where when they go wrong we have to spend time > tracking them down, having a hidden configuration may not help this. If I heart this earlier, I'd most probably choose a non-hidden location. I perhaps do not see this as a problem, because I configure each of my Eclipse workspaces to show all .* resources because .mvn is not the only important file that is hidden: there is also .gitignore, .gitattributes, .travis.yml, .appveyor.yml and even .git and others that one wants to open from time to time. But now that srcdeps has some users, sorry, I do not think I find this important enough to break backwards compatibility.

-- P >>> Thinking about the topic branch development, within the Elytron team we >>> are using some SNAPSHOTs from the official repos and at times we have >>> forked projects into our incubator and developed against SNAPSHOTs from >>> those >> >> Allowing SNAPSHOTs on any remote Maven repository leads to loosing >> reproducibility of the builds of the dependent project. Srcdeps offers >> much more reproducibility and portalbility over environments in such >> situations. > > Yes I am saying in the development of the Elytron topic branches this > could help a lot - but the assumptions as to which git repos we are > using would be wrong. > >>> as as you select the SHA for the build you would also need to >>> select which repository you really want. >> >> Yes, the mapping which dependencies are built from which git >> repositories is defined in srcdeps.yaml. I see no problem in having one >> git URL in one branch and having different git URL in another branch. > > Which I think as this is a file engineers could be editing to tweak > their builds means it should not be hidden. > >> Thanks, >> >> Peter >> >>>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi *, >>>>> >>>>> this is not new to those of you who attended my talk on the F2F >>>>> 2016 in >>>>> Brno. Let me explain the idea here again for all others who did not >>>>> have >>>>> a chance to be there. >>>>> >>>>> Srcdeps [1] is a tool to build Maven dependencies from their sources. >>>>> With srcdeps, wildfly-core can depend on a specific commit of, e.g., >>>>> undertow: >>>>> >>>>> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-aabbccd</version.io.undertow> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> where aabbccd is the git commit id to build when any undertow artifact >>>>> is requested during the build of wildfly-core. >>>>> >>>>> [1] describes in detail, how it works. >>>>> >>>>> The main advantage of srcdeps is that changes in components can be >>>>> integrated and tested in wildfly-core immediately after they are >>>>> committed to a public component branch. There is no need to wait for >>>>> the >>>>> component release. >>>>> >>>>> Here in the WildFly family of projects, it is often the case that >>>>> something needs to be fixed in a component, but the verification >>>>> (using >>>>> bug reproducer, or integration test) is possible only at the level of >>>>> wildfly or wildfly-core. Engineers typically work with snapshots >>>>> locally, but when their changes need to get shared (CI, reviews) in a >>>>> reproducible manner, snapshots cannot be used anymore. >>>>> In such situations a source dependency come in handy: it is very >>>>> easy to >>>>> share and it is as reproducible as a Maven build from a specific >>>>> commit >>>>> can be. All CIs and reviewers can work with it, because all source >>>>> dependency compilation is done under the hood by Maven. >>>>> >>>>> Developers working on changes that span over multiple interdependent >>>>> git >>>>> repos can thus get feedback (i-tests, reviews) quickly without waiting >>>>> for releases of components. >>>>> >>>>> Srcdeps emerged in the Hawkular family of projects to solve exactly >>>>> this >>>>> kind of situation and is in use there since around October 2015. >>>>> >>>>> When I said there is no need to wait for releases of components, I did >>>>> not mean that we can get rid of component releases altogether. >>>>> Clearly, >>>>> we cannot, because i.a. for any tooling uninformed about how srcdeps >>>>> work, those source dependencies would simply be non-resolvable from >>>>> public Maven repositories. So, before releasing the dependent >>>>> component >>>>> (such as wildfly-core) all its dependencies need to be released. To >>>>> enforce this, srcdeps is by default configured to make the release >>>>> fail, >>>>> as long as there are source dependencies. >>>>> >>>>> I have sent a PR introducing srcdeps to wildfly-core: >>>>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/2122 >>>>> To get a feeling how it works, checkout the branch, switch to e.g. >>>>> <version.io.undertow>1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd</version.io.undertow> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (that happens to be the commit id of the 1.4.8.Final tag) >>>>> and build wildfly-core as usual with "mvn clean install". You'll >>>>> see in >>>>> the build log that undertow is being cloned to >>>>> ~/.m2/srcdeps/io/undertow >>>>> and that it is built there. After the build, check that the >>>>> 1.4.8.Final-SRC-revision-1bff8c32f0eee986e83a7589ae95ebbc1d67d6bd >>>>> version of Undertow got installed to your local Maven repo (usually >>>>> ~/m2/repository/io/undertow/undertow-core ) >>>>> >>>>> Are there any questions or comments? >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/srcdeps/srcdeps-maven#srcdeps-maven >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> P.S.: I will be talking about srcdeps on Saturday 2017-01-28 at >>>>> 14:30 at >>>>> DevConf Brno. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>>>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev