Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-16934

Consider excludes from POM.xml

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: New Feature New Feature
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Icon: Major Major
    • jacoco-plugin
    • None
    • Jenkins 1.502 / Tomcat 6 / Debian 6 / JDK 1.6.0_18 / x86

      It would be great if the JaCoCo plugin would read the excludes from POM.xml when used within a Maven-type job.

      At is annoying that one must give excludes manually in the JaCoCo config when having already set them in the POM.

          [JENKINS-16934] Consider excludes from POM.xml

          Ognjen Bubalo added a comment -

          Hi,

          Maybe it would confuse others who use their POM differently, but there can be a checkbox "use POM configuration" and can be implemented. If you want you can discuss this on the mailing list. I can implement it but it will take some time to start the progress because of other issues.

          Cheers,
          Ogi

          Ognjen Bubalo added a comment - Hi, Maybe it would confuse others who use their POM differently, but there can be a checkbox "use POM configuration" and can be implemented. If you want you can discuss this on the mailing list. I can implement it but it will take some time to start the progress because of other issues. Cheers, Ogi

          Markus KARG added a comment -

          I am not clear about what exactly you like me to discuss on the mailing list, as the outcome is rather obvious. So I need to ask a dumb question before starting the thread:

          • As every Maven-JaCoCo-user (either Jenkins user or not) must define JaCoCo excludes in the POM (otherwise the Maven-JaCoCo-plugin will not know about these when running Maven outside of Jenkins – which is the most typical usage of Maven even amongst Maven-Jenkins users, otherwise they would be simple Jenkins-only users), every such POM will contain any needed excludes.
          • It makes only little (let's frankly say: not any) sense to have different excludes in the POM and in Jenkins. If a build fails on Jenkins but passes locally due to different excludes, what shall that be any good for?
          • Nobody likes to do the same things twice or has fun to manually synchronize config changes. This is why we all love the tight integration of Maven with Jenkins.
          • If you think that it is best to make this switchable, it makes sense to follow your idea of having a checkbox (with "default = use POM", see above why). If you doubt about that, why proposing it then?

          So what actually do you like to get discussed? Whether POM-checking makes sense at all (this is already proven as I definitively need it and you seem to have at least understood the idea why it is needed), or whether the checkbox must exist (which was your idea not mine) or whether the default should be "use POM" (which is rather obvious thinking about the pure amount of Maven users amongst the Jenkins users)? See, it makes no sense to start a discussion without knowing what kind of result it shall produce in the end.

          Regards
          -Markus

          Markus KARG added a comment - I am not clear about what exactly you like me to discuss on the mailing list, as the outcome is rather obvious. So I need to ask a dumb question before starting the thread: As every Maven-JaCoCo-user (either Jenkins user or not) must define JaCoCo excludes in the POM (otherwise the Maven-JaCoCo-plugin will not know about these when running Maven outside of Jenkins – which is the most typical usage of Maven even amongst Maven-Jenkins users, otherwise they would be simple Jenkins-only users), every such POM will contain any needed excludes. It makes only little (let's frankly say: not any) sense to have different excludes in the POM and in Jenkins. If a build fails on Jenkins but passes locally due to different excludes, what shall that be any good for? Nobody likes to do the same things twice or has fun to manually synchronize config changes. This is why we all love the tight integration of Maven with Jenkins. If you think that it is best to make this switchable, it makes sense to follow your idea of having a checkbox (with "default = use POM", see above why). If you doubt about that, why proposing it then? So what actually do you like to get discussed? Whether POM-checking makes sense at all (this is already proven as I definitively need it and you seem to have at least understood the idea why it is needed), or whether the checkbox must exist (which was your idea not mine) or whether the default should be "use POM" (which is rather obvious thinking about the pure amount of Maven users amongst the Jenkins users)? See, it makes no sense to start a discussion without knowing what kind of result it shall produce in the end. Regards -Markus

          Ognjen Bubalo added a comment -

          Although I don't like bringing in more external tools, it would be a useful feature to parse the pom.xml for Maven users and fill the config automatically.

          Ognjen Bubalo added a comment - Although I don't like bringing in more external tools, it would be a useful feature to parse the pom.xml for Maven users and fill the config automatically.

          Philip Aston added a comment -

          This is similar to JENKINS-21658.

          Philip Aston added a comment - This is similar to JENKINS-21658 .

          Sean Flanigan added a comment -

          This seems to be a duplicate of https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-15570

          Sean Flanigan added a comment - This seems to be a duplicate of https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-15570

            Unassigned Unassigned
            mkarg Markus KARG
            Votes:
            1 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated: