Please note there are more exceptions, e.g. in reporting. That's always been a problem. Not sure, but I must have opened an issue for this somewhere.
Just for the sake of completeness. On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, 14:12 Guillaume Nodet, <gno...@apache.org> wrote: > Yes, that's why I only kept a single exception in the new API. > > Le lun. 11 juil. 2022 à 13:59, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > a > écrit : > > > It got aligned AFAIK -> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/lifecycle/internal/MojoExecutor.java#L382 > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > < > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 11 juil. 2022 à 13:47, Christoph Läubrich <m...@laeubi-soft.de> > a > > écrit : > > > > > I might be wrong, but in case of "build FAILURE" only a short error is > > > printed saying user should enable -X while with "BUILD ERROR" the > > > exception is printed, maybe with a hint not to blame maven :-) > > > > > > Am 11.07.22 um 13:43 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > In all discussions about this topic it seems that this distinctions > > never > > > > had been useful so there seems to be an agreement to get a single > > > exception > > > > "something went wrong in the mojo". > > > > Guess at the end being finer grain is not that useful for end user > and > > > > makes writing mojo harder but I agree it can be neat to wrap the > error > > > in a > > > > MavenMojoRuntimeException (mojo writer shouldn't instantiate) and add > > the > > > > source of the error...but at the end for end user it is the same, it > > > failed > > > > so he must read why and fix it so not sure it is worth the effort. > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > > < > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 11 juil. 2022 à 12:38, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > a > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > >> Howdy, > > > >> and along this line... > > > >> > > > >> BUILD FAILURE - uncompilable source, test failed, badly configured > > > plugin, > > > >> missing something from build, etc. all the issues that user CAN (and > > > >> should) fix to have build pass, usually by editing sources, POM or > > > >> settings. > > > >> > > > >> BUILD ERROR - disk full, no perm to write to disk (ie. during > > resolve), > > > >> remote repo unreachable (during resolve), etc. issues user MAY fix > > (ie. > > > >> wrong URL in POM) but also MAY NOT fix (ie. corp repoman down) > > > >> > > > >> T > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:32 PM Tamás Cservenák < > ta...@cservenak.net > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Howdy, > > > >>> > > > >>> AFAIR one of the reasons for these two exceptions were to > distinguish > > > >>> cases like: > > > >>> * expected exception during execution of Mojo: most typical, > > > uncompilable > > > >>> source, or bad config/param, or something alike, condition the user > > CAN > > > >>> (and should) fix, usually by editing sources, POM or settings. > > > >>> * unexpected exception during execution of Mojo: IO/permission, > disk > > > >> full, > > > >>> network, whatever -- this condition user MAY fix or may not be able > > to > > > >> fix > > > >>> (ie. some remote resource is down) > > > >>> > > > >>> Re Guillaume proposal: IMHO it lacks this distinction above.... > > > >>> > > > >>> T > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 9:56 PM Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I have the following proposal for the new API: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/gnodet/maven/tree/m-api-immutable/api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/plugin > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Le sam. 9 juil. 2022 à 15:23, Slawomir Jaranowski < > > > >> s.jaranow...@gmail.com > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> a écrit : > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Hi > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Today - Maven 3.8.6 both exception generate the same message: > BUILD > > > >>>> FAILURE > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We have some inconsistencies in javadocs descriptions [1]. > > > >>>>> We also have the wrong description on guide page [2]. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> There was a discussion about it, some on slack, some on GitHub > [3] > > > and > > > >>>>> connected issue MNG-7351 [4] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> As I remember we want one exception for Mojo in Maven 4. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So it will be good to make a decision about it and fix mentioned > > > place > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>> be consistent. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> [1] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.8.6/apidocs/org/apache/maven/plugin/Mojo.html#execute-- > > > >>>>> [2] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://maven.apache.org/guides/plugin/guide-java-plugin-development.html > > > >>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/632 > > > >>>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7351 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> -- > > > >>>>> Sławomir Jaranowski > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> ------------------------ > > > >>>> Guillaume Nodet > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet >
