16f6c0aecf
Inline adoc files when they are included exactly once. Also fix language tags because this inlining gives us better information on what language the code is written in.
71 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext
71 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext
== Why is this an issue?
|
|
|
|
This rule raises an issue when required properties are not included in a project's pom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Compliant solution
|
|
|
|
With a properties value of: division, division/name
|
|
|
|
[source,java]
|
|
----
|
|
<project //...>
|
|
<division>
|
|
<name>Manufacturing</name>
|
|
</division>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ... -->
|
|
</project>
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Implementation Specification
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
=== Message
|
|
|
|
Add the missing "xxx" property to this pom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Parameters
|
|
|
|
.properties
|
|
****
|
|
|
|
Comma-delimited list of required property paths, E.G. division, division/name
|
|
****
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Highlighting
|
|
|
|
"project" part of project tag
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Comments And Links
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
=== on 24 Nov 2015, 17:40:24 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
\[~michael.gumowski] do you think this should be a rule template?
|
|
|
|
Also, the inheritance of properties set in parent poms will be recognized, right?
|
|
|
|
=== on 25 Nov 2015, 09:03:03 Freddy Mallet wrote:
|
|
Just my own feedback: I'm not a big fan of such highly configurable rule. Do we really want it ? :)
|
|
|
|
=== on 30 Nov 2015, 15:45:20 Michael Gumowski wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] Users may indeed want to use this rule with multiple configurations... So it seems that a rule template would be a better approach.
|
|
|
|
Now, to me it's a bit too soon to consider that inheritance will be handled in analysis of pom in the java plugin. At least for a first iteration on handling java-related files. It will however be of course a long-term objective regarding how we handle pom files. I would then go for a first implementation without inheritance, or postpone the rule. WDYT?
|
|
|
|
|
|
\[~freddy.mallet], The rule was suggested by an user from the mailing list, when speaking about potential rules targeting pom.xml files. Their rules would target company-specific required attributes of the pom. This seems to be a fair need.
|
|
|
|
=== on 30 Nov 2015, 15:55:18 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
Thanks [~michael.gumowski], template update made.
|
|
|
|
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|