[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-391?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17786336#comment-17786336
]
Alexey Loubyansky commented on MRESOLVER-391:
---------------------------------------------
[~cstamas] I think I understand your point about the current implementation of
the resolver. What is not entirely clear to me is whether you see this issue,
which is called "Scope mediation improvements", as an issue and if so, what do
you think needs to change (in the resolver, i guess, since it's an MRESOLVER
issue at this point) to resolve it?
> Scope mediation improvements
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: MRESOLVER-391
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-391
> Project: Maven Resolver
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Resolver
> Reporter: Tamas Cservenak
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> Original issue description was: "As per MNG-5988: if an artifact in "test"
> scope is found nearer, but in scope "compile" is found deeper in graph, the
> "test" scope wins. This at runtime may lead to CNFEx."
> This is completely wrong premise, and it contains following false assumptions:
> * The "test" classpath is superset of "runtime" classpath. Is not.
> * (derived from that above) To get "runtime" classpath collect via resolver
> "test" classpath and cherry-pick non-"test" (or filter out "test") scoped
> nodes. This is not how it works.
> * A collected graph can contain both, "test" and "runtime" classpath (implied
> with "test scope wins but at runtime..."). There is no "production part" of
> "test" graph. Graph is this or that, not both, should not be assumed
> "overlapping".
> When one asks resolver to collect (or resolve), resolver will perform based
> on input. And the result is either this or that, but not both. In fact, the
> collected "dirty tree" (graph) cannot even represent both "test" or "runtime"
> at the same time!
> The reproducers in this issue are actually precise examples showing why it is
> impossible.
> Hence, this issue should be more like a "discussion" to decide what is right
> behavior of resolver in these cases, as for sure there are some edge cases
> (like silent version bump from 1.x to 2.x), but still, it does happen per
> user instruction (who authors POM), and Resolver does not want to delve into
> "compatibility calculation" space, where it can decide is a change
> "compatible" or not (like semver and alike).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
