| Dependency resolution - too broad? [message #653422] |
Wed, 09 February 2011 17:27  |
 Matthew Webber
Messages: 198
Registered: December 2010 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Recently I did a "resolve and materialize" for a feature project, and was surprised to see a lot more plugins checked out than I expected.
The reason turned out to be that one of the plugins that my feature required had an old .product file in it (.product files are normally put in feature projects, not plugins, but anyhow ...). The bad .product file had a whole lot of extra plugin names in it. I have also seen similar behavior with .launch configurations.
It seems that when Buckminster determines dependencies for Eclipse projects, it looks in any .launch or .product file that it comes across, and any dependencies in there are applied to the enclosing component.
This is, I guess, by design - Buckminster is using Eclipse-maintained metadata as advertised. However, it can be annoying, particularly with .launch configurations, since our developers sometimes check in bad configrations, on the grounds that they are only testing aids anyhow.
Is there a way I can tell Buckminster to avoid .launch and/or .product files when examining existing metadata? Maybe something in a CSPEX?
|
|
|
| Re: Dependency resolution - too broad? [message #653436 is a reply to message #653422] |
Wed, 09 February 2011 18:16  |
|
Hi Matthew,
To my knowledge, Buckminster doesn't look at .launch configurations. .products yes, but not .launch.
The easiest way to exclude .product from the search is to move it into a folder. Buckminster will only look in the root.
Alternatively, you can add a .cspex in adjacent to the .product file where you remove the unwanted dependencies using an
<alterDependencies> element with <remove name=""> sub elements.
- thomas
On 2011-02-09 18:27, Matthew Webber wrote:
> Recently I did a "resolve and materialize" for a feature project, and was surprised to see a lot more plugins checked
> out than I expected.
>
> The reason turned out to be that one of the plugins that my feature required had an old .product file in it (.product
> files are normally put in feature projects, not plugins, but anyhow ...). The bad .product file had a whole lot of extra
> plugin names in it. I have also seen similar behavior with .launch configurations.
>
> It seems that when Buckminster determines dependencies for Eclipse projects, it looks in any .launch or .product file
> that it comes across, and any dependencies in there are applied to the enclosing component.
>
> This is, I guess, by design - Buckminster is using Eclipse-maintained metadata as advertised. However, it can be
> annoying, particularly with .launch configurations, since our developers sometimes check in bad configrations, on the
> grounds that they are only testing aids anyhow.
>
> Is there a way I can tell Buckminster to avoid .launch and/or .product files when examining existing metadata? Maybe
> something in a CSPEX?
>
>
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03038 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
