ant-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ed Burcher (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (IVY-1159) Resolved Ivy Properties written to cache during ivy:resolve incorrectly represents transitive evictions
Date Sun, 23 May 2010 11:01:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1159?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12870387#action_12870387
] 

Ed Burcher commented on IVY-1159:
---------------------------------

Hi Maarten - you raise some interesting points. The question of whether a revision is treated
as being static or dynamic would therefore appear to be a combination of the Revision Spec
(1.0 vs 1.0+ etc), and the resolver properties. Secondly, let's assert that the delivery engine
needs to understand whether something was treated as static or dynamic to effect the correct
delivery behaviour (dynamic being something that should be replaced with the resolved version).
Because of this, I'd argue that the static/dynamic determination that was 'current' whilst
obtaining each selected revision should be retained as part of the retained resolve state,
so that it can be used by the delivery engine. In other words, the resolver that was used
to obtain the ultimately selected revision should contribute state to the delivery engine
specifically because the static/dynamic treatment can only be fully understood with reference
to a particular resolver.

--
Your second bullet is again very interesting and I have to say that personally I _would_ make
the same argument for static revisions:
Presumably the situation described will only occur with static revisions where transitivity
is enabled during resolve. Is it possible that the original vision of a distinction between
static and dynamic revisions was made substantially less clear by the introduction of transitive
resolution in 1.4+ ?
I'd argue this because it's clear that when transitive resolution is not used, behaviour is
basically consistent. Static revs are not replaced in deliver, whereas dynamic ones are. As
soon as you go with transitive resolution, evictions become possible both for 'static' and
'dynamic' revisions. (Moreover different ivy descriptors in the overall set may have different
revision specs - some of which may be static and some dynamic). Whereas pre-1.4 ivy offers
a delivered descriptor that is consistent with the resolve (for any combination of static/dynamic),
your bullet illustrates that this is not the case anymore. Personally I am not convinced the
introduction of transitive resolution should have had any bearing on whether deliver is supposed
to _in principle_ produce a file that allows an identical, static, repeatable resolution in
future. 

In practice I believe that using transitive resolution makes and and all revisions evictable
and hence dynamic. I therefore propose the following pseudo logic:

IF resolve mode is TRANSITIVE
 treat all dependencies as dynamic when emitting delivered ivy file
ELSE 
 for each dependency:
   IF the specification is dynamic OR if the resolver that selected the revision is forced-dynamic,
then treat as dynamic in the delivery stage
   ELSE treat as static

--
Regarding your suggestion - I think a new flag could be a pragmatic way to solve this in the
short term. However I am not convinced it will work as stated - the properties file that drives
the replacement in ivy:deliver is actually written in the ivy:resolve stage (when the bug
occurs, this file contains bogus data). Since the resolve task does not have knowledge of
the flags that will be passed to the deliver task, the written data would still be bad. This
is basically because it treats a rev as static when it should have been treated dynamically
given that it existed within a transitive, forced-resolve context.

> Resolved Ivy Properties written to cache during ivy:resolve incorrectly represents transitive
evictions 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: IVY-1159
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1159
>             Project: Ivy
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core
>    Affects Versions: trunk
>            Reporter: Ed Burcher
>             Fix For: 2.2.0-RC1
>
>         Attachments: IVY1159.tar.gz
>
>
> In ResolveEngine.resolve the code that writes the properties file appears to be incorrect.

> When the dependencies collection includes two or more entries for the same dependency
(one from the root ivy file and the others being transitives), the properties file will always
only ever be populated with the information from the IvyNode that belongs to the root ivy
file (effectively the comment states this, so it certainly appears intentional).
> This produces the following bugs / undesirable effects:
>  * incorrect delivered descriptor in some situations (where a dependency is both directly
and transitively imported)
>  * order of declaration of dependencies alters behaviour
> These are pretty major problems because (as demonstrated below) a delivered/published
ivy descriptor can identify completely bogus revisions for the dynamic->static replacements,
which are not to the actual revisions used when compiling etc 
> Set up
> module *one* has no dependencies and has been published (as rev = 1, say)
> module *two* has a dependency on module one (only) and has been published (as rev = 1,
also)
> module *three* has dependencies on both modules one and two and *lists them in the order
two,one*
> In the module three descriptor the revisions mentioned for two and one do not actually
exist (two=0 & one=0 say - repository only contains rev=1 of both)
> Ivy settings (attached) has a resolver that refers to a local repo, and has force=true
and local=true set. 
> Problem Case - use case: publishing module 3
> 1) ivy:resolve on module three, using refresh=true, transitive=true. Otherwise nothing
special here.
> then
> 2) ivy:deliver (status=reelase, pubdate=now, deliverpattern supplied, pubrevision supplied
(rev=1))
> 3) (lastly, the ivy:publish step woud happen here, but is not relevant to the problem)
> Expected outcome:
> Because the primary resolver has force=true, rev 1 of both module dependencies of 'three'
should be selected [Because rev=1 publications are the only ones present in the repository]
when resolving three's declared deps (both of which declare a dep on rev=0). 
> Actual outcome: 
> Delivered descriptor correctly names two as being resolved to rev=1. Incorrectly names
module one as being resolved to rev=0 (which doesn't exist - and never has!)
> Workaround:
> Reverse the order of the declared dependencies in three's ivy descriptor (i.e new order
is one, two) - problem does not occur.
> Diagnosis:
> Logs for resolve appear to show everything is fine (the eviction is noted, the generated
report xml shows the declared direct dependency (one, rev=0) being evicted by the transitive
dependency (one, rev=1 as declared in two's published ivy descriptor)
> However, debugging DeliverEngine.java and ResolveEngine.java - it is apparent that the
'resolved ivy properties file' is used to drive the replacement of dynamic revisions with
static ones during deliver. In the error case, the properties file shows this:
> +revision\:\#@\#\:+0\:\#@\#\:+module\:\#@\#\:+one\:  <snip> :=0 ?
> +revision\:\#@\#\:+0\:\#@\#\:+module\:\#@\#\:+two\:   <snip> :=1 release
> The '?' is put there because the IvyNode that represented the direct dependency has no
descriptor (correctly, because it has been evicted). Because the real selected revision is
not put into the properties file, the ivy:deliver task is doomed to produce wrong results.
> The correct behaviour in this case would be for the EvictionInfo stored against the evicted
IvyNode to be inspected to find the appropriate revision information. I have attached a pretty
ugly example of how this could be achieved.
> Just before the comment ("The evicted modules have no description, so we can't put their
status")
> {code}
>                             if (depDescriptor == null) {
>                               EvictionData ed = null;
>                               for (int j=0; j<confs.length && ed == null;
j++) {
>                                 ed = dependencies[i].getEvictedData(confs[j]);
>                               }
>                               if (ed != null) {
>                                 Collection selected = ed.getSelected();
>                                 if (selected != null) {
>                                   if (selected.size() == 1) {
>                                     IvyNode sel = (IvyNode)selected.iterator().next();
>                                     depDescriptor = sel.getDescriptor();
>                                     depResolvedId = sel.getResolvedId();
>                                     if (depResolvedId == null) {
>                                       throw new NullPointerException("getResolvedId()
is null for (transitive) " 
>                                         + dependencies[i].toString());
>                                     }
>                                     rev = depResolvedId.getRevision();
>                                   }
>                                   else if (selected.size() > 1) {
>                                     throw new RuntimeException("Unexpectedly large number
of selecteds within eviction collection");
>                                   }
>                                 }
>                               }
>                             }
> {code}

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message