refactor: Excluding decompiler related features from spoon-core#2766
refactor: Excluding decompiler related features from spoon-core#2766surli merged 23 commits intoINRIA:masterfrom
Conversation
|
This is a PoC of what could be a split of spoon into different artifacts. WDYT? |
|
Looks really good to me. This will enable to have a clean Maven central release without any odd dependency. We can also add a travis job to test it. @surli with respect to our conversation, WDYT? |
|
I deactivated travis builds for |
|
Similarly properties could be move into spoon-pom, but ... #2771 |
|
FTR I got an email from the CFR maintainer:
|
|
Except for the remaining discussion on the name (and possibly, the |
|
I do not use Maven and I don't try to understand that building stuff, but I like the idea of this PR a lot. 👍 Thank You Nicolas! |
|
Sorry for asking lot of changes but the idea here is really to have a first external module of Spoon to start seeing how we can decompose some parts, so the most info we can put in an external pom and reuse, the better. |
Don't be, it's actually helpful. But, to answer a lot of your comments, my problem is that spoon-pom is not yet published on maven central. So, locally on my machine I can move a lot of things in |
Change CI scripts to run directly all tests from spoon-pom. |
|
API changes: 7 (Detected by Revapi) Old API: fr.inria.gforge.spoon:spoon-core:jar:7.2.0-20181120.234134-99 / New API: fr.inria.gforge.spoon:spoon-core:jar:7.2.0-SNAPSHOT
|
| </executions> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
|
|
||
| <plugin> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you removed checkstyle from spoon-core, so I assume you put it in spoon-pom, so it means you don't need it here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. Both spoon-core and spoon-decompiler declare the checkstyle plugin but with differents options (exculsion of some sources for exemple).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But the checkstyle profile is now in spoon-pom.
|
We did the last changes per our discussion, CI is green. @surli do you merge? |
Attempt to implement #2747
Related to #2737