Hi,

I think that introducing property is better than changing logging levels.

Everything is reported by one class so we don't have the possibility of
what information and how it should be reported.

So I would like to think again what options we have and what for?

In current 3.9.x we have:

 - NONE, // mute validation completely (validation issue collection still
happens, it is just not reported!)
 - INLINE, // inline, each "internal" problem one line next to mojo
invocation
 - SUMMARY, // at end, list of plugin GAVs along with "internal" issues
 - BRIEF, // synonym to SUMMARY
 - VERBOSE // at end, list of plugin GAVs along with detailed report of ANY
validation issues

First BRIEF and SUMMARY are duplicated one should be enough.

I would like to see options to see "internal" as inline and "external" as
brief - list of plugin

Currently we don't have a possibility to report external issues in brief
mode - only in verbose.




czw., 1 cze 2023 o 18:49 Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> napisał(a):

> Howdy,
>
> did locally a change that any validation issues are always reported in
> DEBUG (left remains as before).
>
> Here is an example output:
> https://gist.github.com/cstamas/277a5c8b400af917e784a8b0f3f3db26
>
> Simply put, DEBUG is always logged (for any kind), and if you use commands
> like in gist (or tweak logging properties) you get output as this.
>
> This also reveals how validation is not invoked on same spot:
> - per module (once) plugins are resolved, that's where dep scopes etc are
> validated (and reported once, as results are reused)
> - per mojo invocation happens parameter and config validation
>
> Thanks
> T
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:28 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1, guess it should be off by default and on in verbose/-X.
> > If user always want to see it or see only a subpart tunning is fine IMHO.
> >
> > 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 jeu. 1 juin 2023 à 18:19, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Howdy,
> > >
> > > well, am starting to think we should just use different loggers for
> these
> > > (by locality) and let users tweak logging as they wish?
> > >
> > > Or any other idea?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > T
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:44 PM Slawomir Jaranowski <
> > s.jaranow...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have some of discussion about this feature in 3.9.2
> > > >
> > > > I saw some negative opinions ... Maybe I am missing something
> > > > I think that people's nature is that when they don't like something
> > they
> > > > will speak about it ... but when people like something don't speak
> > about
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > So I would like to say that I like it :-)
> > > >
> > > > Of course users can not fix problems in used plugins, but I see that
> > when
> > > > we show those problems users start putting pressure on authors of
> > plugins
> > > > to fix it.
> > > >
> > > > Now in 3.9.3 we will group internal - problems which users can fix
> and
> > > > external problems in plugins.
> > > >
> > > > By default we will show only internal violations in inline mode so
> > > external
> > > > violations will never be visible.
> > > >
> > > > now we have:
> > > > - NONE - no reports
> > > > - INLINE - internal violation in place where exist (default)
> > > > - SUMMARY - reports summary but only about internal ....
> > > > - VERBOSE - boths internal and external in verbose mode
> > > >
> > > > I would like to have an option to see internal as inline and external
> > as
> > > > briev at the and of build,
> > > > Now I don't have possibility to display reports for external issues
> in
> > > > summary/brief mode
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Reply via email to