21 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
21 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
|
=== Deprecate: RSPEC-1212
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2015-11-24T17:27:41Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~michael.gumowski] it is possible that this should be a rule template (to allow customization of the message per dependency) rather than a rule with parameters. WDYT?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2015-11-30T14:02:30Z Michael Gumowski Wrote:
|
||
|
|
I would also prefer a rule template [~ann.campbell.2].
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Now, I'm just wondering about the best format of the parameters, and I really wonder what should be the best one to use. Maybe we need to define it a bit more explicitly, as usually, we define dependencies with a groupId and an artifactId (``++groupId:artifactId++``).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
For instance you may want to allow all the dependencies from ``++X.Y.Z++``, but absolutely forbid ``++X.Y.Z:A++``, or forbid only a given version of an artifact, or more complex, a range of version!
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I would then say that, by default, you are providing as parameter the groupId to forbid, if usage of column (``++:++``), then it's a given artifact, which can follow patterns (``++*:*.log4j++`` ?). For the versions, I have no idea how explicitly mention it however, but I'm pretty sure it's required. Any idea?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2015-12-01T14:14:24Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
Check out the parameters now [~michael.gumowski]
|
||
|
|
|