Skip to content

Bumped to Groovy-Eclipse version 2.9.2 (corresponds to Eclipse 4.8.0). #264

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 24, 2018

Conversation

fvgh
Copy link
Member

@fvgh fvgh commented Jul 20, 2018

Using Groovy-Eclipse version 2.9.2.
As requested, the version used by the user configuration is equal to the "corresponding" Eclipse version (4.8.0). Note that not every transitive dependency is equal to the one used by Eclipse 4.8.0, but this should not have an impact on the formatter behaviour.

@fvgh
Copy link
Member Author

fvgh commented Jul 20, 2018

@nedtwigg Please have a look at the transitive dependencies I omitted. Problem is that the current Provisioner only allows to get all dependencies, including the once excluded from the Spotless formatter dependencies. For spotless-eclipse-jdt, this only leads to a download of unnecessary JARs, but for example for spotless-eclipse-groovy it is fatal, since it will try to download some Maven coordinates not available on M2, but which are platform dependent and can therefore not easily be provided in the fat JAR.

I would like to have a dedicated PR, extending the Provisioner correspondingly.

@nedtwigg nedtwigg merged commit bef05d1 into master Jul 24, 2018
@nedtwigg nedtwigg deleted the eclipse_4_8_0_groovy branch July 24, 2018 16:46
@fvgh
Copy link
Member Author

fvgh commented Jul 25, 2018

@nedtwigg Not sure whether you had a look at my previous comment. This is an issue and makes this PR somewhat in-stable, since it leaves two transitive dependency versions "free" (within their major version) rolling. As I sated for 263, I would prefer it you can provide the required Provisioner changes (method or additional argument is needed, so that Provisioner does not resolve transitive dependencies), since it affects the core design.

@nedtwigg
Copy link
Member

Apologies @fvgh, I'm hard-capped on time right now and I don't have time to dig in deeper. My #1 priority is to never block somebody else's work just because I don't have time to review it, but initiating new work on the Provisioner isn't going to make the top of my todo list for weeks at least.

@fvgh
Copy link
Member Author

fvgh commented Jul 25, 2018 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants