buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Will Rogers <>
Subject xmlbeans problems
Date Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:37:31 GMT
I'm using 'buildr/xmlbeans' and 'compile_xml_beans _(:source, :main,
:xsd)' in my project definition.

1. I'm observing a similar problem to the one I reported yesterday
with the resources task. I edited one of my files in src/main/xsd and
ran "buildr package". Output:

Building myproject
Running XMLBeans schema compiler
←[34mredefining Project←[0m
Time to build schema type system: 1.727 seconds
Time to generate code: 12.038 seconds
Compiling myproject into C:/blah/myproject/target/classes
Note: Some input files use unchecked or unsafe operations.
Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details.
Packaging myproject
Running integration tests...
←[32mCompleted in 1m2.352s←[0m

NOTE: myproject.jar was NOT updated. I checked target/classes and
verified that the XMLBeans were recompiled and have newer modified
dates than the jar. Shouldn't that trigger the package task
reassembling the jar? Can anyone verify this?

2. Adding a brand new file to src/main/xsd is not detected by the
XMLBeans support at all. I did a "buildr clean package", copied a new
XSD into src/main/xsd, and then did a "buildr package". Output:

Building myproject
Packaging myproject
Running integration tests...
←[32mCompleted in 2.723s←[0m

Schema generation did not run, compile did not run, and packaging did
not run. The new file was ignored.

3. In addon/buildr/xmlbeans.rb, the compile_xml_beans function calls
requires() is defined thus:

  @requires ||= REQUIRES.artifacts.each(&:invoke).map(&:to_s)

...which resolves to filesystem paths, not artifact specs. This
results in compile.dependencies containing two elements that are
string filesystem paths instead of Artifact instances, which is
screwing with some deployment scripting I am attempting. Removing the
'.map(&:to_s)' from the end of that line makes requires() return
artifact specs instead and everything works nicely. Does that seem
like a reasonable change? I will file an enhancement ticket for this
unless someone points out something wrong with it.

-- Will

P.S. thanks for the excellent support thus far and sorry for
continuing to poke the bear ;)

View raw message