mmm ... just had a look into the testcode - failonerror is already implemented
(incl testcases).
SubAntTest.java
public void testMultipleTargetsOneDoesntExist_FOEfalse() {
executeTarget("multipleTargetsOneDoesntExist_FOEfalse");
assertLogContaining("Target \"three\" does not exist in the project
\"subant\"");
}
public void testMultipleTargetsOneDoesntExist_FOEtrue() {
expectBuildExceptionContaining("multipleTargetsOneDoesntExist_FOEtrue",
"Calling not existent target",
"Target \"three\" does not exist in the
project \"subant\"");
}
subant.xml
<target name="multipleTargetsOneDoesntExist_FOEfalse">
<subant antfile="mysubant.xml" failonerror="false">
<dirset dir="." includes="subant/subant-test*"/>
<target name="one"/>
<target name="three"/>
</subant>
</target>
<target name="multipleTargetsOneDoesntExist_FOEtrue">
<subant antfile="mysubant.xml" failonerror="true">
<dirset dir="." includes="subant/subant-test*"/>
<target name="one"/>
<target name="three"/>
</subant>
</target>
There are two "subbuildfiles" - both contain target "one", but only the first
has a target "three".
Jan
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2006 06:57
>An: user@ant.apache.org
>Betreff: AW: AW: dynamic targets
>
>I think a failonerror (default=true for bwc) would help and
>would be easily to implement.
>So just
>
> <macrodef name="m-iter">
> <attribute name="target"/>
> <attribute name="patternsetref"/>
> <sequential>
> <subant target="@{target}" inheritAll="false"
>failonerror="false">
> <fileset dir=".">
> <patternset refid="@{patternsetref}"/>
> </fileset>
> </subant>
> </sequential>
> </macrodef>
>
>should do the job?
>
>
>Jan
>
>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2006 04:58
>>An: Ant Users List
>>Betreff: Re: AW: dynamic targets
>>
>>At 08:05 AM 10/24/2006, you wrote:
>> >same - write a common buildfile (maybe with empty
>>implementation) and all the >projects have all needed targets. Web
>>project could overwrite the >target implementation.
>> >
>> >Jan
>> >
>>
>>Yep, <import> is powerful and extremely useful and I use it all the
>>time. I tried to keep my example specific and concrete so as not to
>>complicate the question. But it seems to have caused the original
>>point of this exercise to be entirely missed.
>>
>>Think of this in an OOP way. You let other
>>classes know what you are capable of by implementing
>interfaces. There
>>are a million things that you might be capable of doing, all
>>represented by methods you might implement. Do you implement all
>>possible methods and, for 99% of the ones you aren't really
>capable of
>>doing, you just report that you aren't capable of the method (by
>>returning null, logging a message, or throwing an exception, etc...)?
>>Or do you implement only the interfaces having the methods
>representing
>>the capabilities you do have? If you said "the former", please stop
>>here. No need to keep reading. If you said "the latter",
>then you're
>>still with me. Read on....
>>
>>
>>In other words, please don't focus on the "war"
>>target. That's an implementation
>>detail. Although I have a master build file, each individual
>build is
>>entirely independent and need not have any knowledge that the
>master or
>>any other builds exists. It might be a very
>>unique build that implements a "blahblah"
>>target. What those of you who have commented are telling me
>is that I
>>should have every build implement a "blahblah"
>>target simply because one unique build does. Yes, I could have all
>>builds import a common build with the "blahblah"
>>target and the build that cares about it could override it,
>but that's
>>conceptually ugly.
>>
>>Let me put it this way. When I run the
>>individual build with "ant -projecthelp", I want to see *ONLY* the
>>targets that are actually implemented in the build. Not 10,000 other
>>dummy targets imported from some common dummy build file. If
>the only
>>capabilities I have in a build are "clean" and "compile", then all I
>>want is...
>>
>>C:\dev>ant -projecthelp
>>Buildfile: build.xml
>>
>>Main targets:
>>
>> clean
>> compile
>>
>>Other targets:
>>
>>Default target: compile
>>
>>
>>I do *NOT* want...
>>
>>C:\dev>ant -projecthelp
>>Buildfile: build.xml
>>
>>Main targets:
>>
>> clean
>> compile
>>
>>Other targets:
>>
>> blahblah
>> war
>> sometargetyoudontcareabout
>> yetanothertargetyoudontcareabout
>> isthisgettingoldyet
>> amidrivingthepointhome
>> maybeacouplemore
>> icouldkeepgoing
>> youthinkicant
>> doyoudoubledogdareme
>> okyougotitmister
>> imstillgoing
>> youaskedforitandyougotit
>> onemorejustforoldtimesake
>> wowthisisstartingtogetannoyingnow
>> yepreallyannoying
>> butforsomereasonijustcantstop
>> okillstop
>> justforyou
>> hehgotchastillgoing
>> okimsickofwriting
>> illstop
>>
>>Default target: compile
>>
>>
>>Does that make it a bit more clear?
>>
>>The dynamic targets would be generated only if the target is
>called on
>>the build and it doesn't exist. And the use-case for this would be
>>mass target calling using <subant> to tell all build files to run a
>>particular target. Rather than having individual build files have to
>>implement a target only to tell the caller that they don't really
>>perform the task, I want a target to by generated on the fly just to
>>satisfy Ant in order to continue on without build failure.
>And, again,
>>this would allow my master build file to be really stupid and generic
>>because it wouldn't have to know which builds implement a "war"
>>target or a "blahblah" target. It would just mass call the target on
>>the individual projects. And the individual projects
>wouldn't have to
>>worry about being the one that bombed out the mass build by not
>>implementing dummy targets, nor would they be forced to report that
>>they perform tasks that they don't really perform.
>>
>>Dynamic target functionality could also make it so that I
>could have a
>>really short master build file that takes whatever target is
>called on
>>it and pass it on to all the other build files without the master
>>target having to implement each mass build target, but have a common
>>infrastructure for doing so. For instance...
>>
>><project name="Build_master">
>>
>> Dynamic target gets generated based on what the user
>entered. The
>>dynamic target calls <m-iter/> with the target provided to Ant on the
>>command line
>>
>> <macrodef name="m-iter">
>> <attribute name="target"/>
>> <attribute name="patternsetref"/>
>> <sequential>
>> <subant target="@{target}" inheritAll="false">
>> <fileset dir=".">
>> <patternset refid="@{patternsetref}"/>
>> </fileset>
>> </subant>
>> </sequential>
>> </macrodef>
>>
>> The alternative to the description above using the
>dynamic targets
>>is, for instance....
>>
>> <target name="jar">
>> <m-iter target="jar"
>patternsetref="subant.build.patternset"/>
>> </target>
>>
>> <target name="test">
>> <m-iter target="test"
>>patternsetref="subant.build.patternset"/>
>> </target>
>>
>> <target name="war">
>> <m-iter target="war" patternsetref="subant.war.patternset"/>
>> </target>
>>
>> etc.... for every possible top-level target implemented by all
>>builds in question, as well as taking pains to define the patternsets
>>for the different types of build types which perform certain
>tasks that
>>others might not implement.
>>
>></project>
>>
>>
>>I can't explain it any better than that. I hope my point was
>made more
>>clear.
>>
>>
>>Jake
>>
>>
>> >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> >>Von: Markus M. May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Oktober 2006 09:13
>> >>An: Ant Users List
>> >>Betreff: Re: dynamic targets
>> >>
>> >>Hello Jacob,
>> >>
>> >>why don't you just import a common build file and define
>>the >>common target there. Only when the target is not defined in
>>>>the build file, the common target gets executed.
>> >>
>> >>R,
>> >>
>> >>Markus M. May
>> >>-------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> >>Datum: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:28:35 -0500
>> >>Von: Jacob Kjome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>An: user@ant.apache.org
>> >>Betreff: dynamic targets
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Along the lines of....
>> >>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-user&m=107429941032345&w=2
>> >>>
>> >>> Is it possible to create targets dynamically, deferring
>>>>creation until >>> such time as it is found that the
>>project doesn't have the target >>> already defined? My use-case is
>>using <subant> to iterate over >>> sub-builds calling a
>target on each
>>one. My current strategy is to >>> define <patternset>s for
>each type
>>of project. For instance, I add >>> all web projects to a
>particular
>>patternset and then reference that >>> patternset when calling
>><subant>....
>> >>>
>> >>> <subant target="war" inheritAll="false">
>> >>> <fileset dir=".">
>> >>> <patternset refid="war.patternset"/>
>> >>> </fileset>
>> >>> </subant>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> As further fallback, individual builds may implement
>>empty targets >>> just so that they don't fail, just in case...
>> >>>
>> >>> <target name="war">
>> >>> <echo message="Unimplemented target"/> </target>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> However, ideally, I'd like to be able to create the above
>>target >>> dynamically in the case that it isn't implemented already
>>by the
>> >>> build. This would have 2 benefits:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. I wouldn't have to bother creating the patternsets.
>>I'd >>just call >>> all the build files and let them either
>build the
>>war file >>or echo the >>> "Unimplemented target" message.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. Individual builds that aren't web projects wouldn't
>>have to have >>> to know what a web project is. If the only
>artifact
>>generated is a >>> simple jar library, it seems odd to have to
>>implement a dummy "war"
>> >>> target simply because some external master build file
>>might >>call "war"
>> >>> on it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Instead of Ant failing with the following message...
>> >>>
>> >>> BUILD FAILED
>> >>> Target `war' does not exist in this project.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ...I'd like Ant to just run the above dynamically created
>> >>target (not >>> just the "war" target, but any target that
>>might not exist), report >>> the "Unimplemented target"
>>message, and continue on.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, is this possible? Where/how do I hook into Ant to
>>know >>the target >>> isn't implemented and create it myself via a
>>scriptdef before Ant >>> gives me the build failure?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Jake
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>For >>additional >>> commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>
>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
>> >>additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
>>additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
