[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPMD-399?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17854167#comment-17854167
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on MPMD-399:
-------------------------------------
michael-o commented on code in PR #154:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-pmd-plugin/pull/154#discussion_r1635351234
##########
src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/PmdReport.java:
##########
@@ -513,23 +513,11 @@ private String determineAuxClasspath() throws
MavenReportException {
resolvedArtifact.getArtifact().getFile().toString());
}
- List<String> projectClasspath = includeTests
- ? localProject.getTestClasspathElements()
- : localProject.getCompileClasspathElements();
-
- // Add the project's target folder first
- classpath.addAll(projectClasspath);
- if (!localProject.isExecutionRoot()) {
- for (String path : projectClasspath) {
- File pathFile = new File(path);
- String[] children = pathFile.list();
-
- if (!pathFile.exists() || (children != null &&
children.length == 0)) {
- getLog().warn("The project " +
localProject.getArtifactId()
- + " does not seem to be compiled. PMD
results might be inaccurate.");
Review Comment:
I doubt that the goals can be made right without breaking something. We also
should split report and validation goals. We should move this to a separate
dicussion. Too broad for now.
> If we would add the fork to compile or test-compile, would the compile
phase be called multiple times? e.g. mvn verify -> compile -> pmd:check >>
pmd:pmd >> compile?
Could be the case w/o an analysis.
> For the concrete issue
[MPMD-399](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPMD-399), I would either
remove the warning message (and ignore this whole discussion: if m-pmd-p is
used correctly, there are no problems). Or try to improve the logic, when we
issue the warning (we can easily fix the target/classes and/or
target/test-classes is missing/empty - but there might be other cases. Maybe
there is a different way to figure out, if the project has been compiled
already).
One the problems, as layed out in MPMD-399, is that if the param is set in
the parent and not all plugins have either/proper combo there will be always a
warning. For now, I would not put too much logic into it. You know PMD best. If
you think that the warning should stay as a safe guard I am fine with that. I
trust you, if you think that the confusion is not worth the warning, we should
remove mit.
##########
src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/PmdReport.java:
##########
@@ -513,23 +513,11 @@ private String determineAuxClasspath() throws
MavenReportException {
resolvedArtifact.getArtifact().getFile().toString());
}
- List<String> projectClasspath = includeTests
- ? localProject.getTestClasspathElements()
- : localProject.getCompileClasspathElements();
-
- // Add the project's target folder first
- classpath.addAll(projectClasspath);
- if (!localProject.isExecutionRoot()) {
- for (String path : projectClasspath) {
- File pathFile = new File(path);
- String[] children = pathFile.list();
-
- if (!pathFile.exists() || (children != null &&
children.length == 0)) {
- getLog().warn("The project " +
localProject.getArtifactId()
- + " does not seem to be compiled. PMD
results might be inaccurate.");
Review Comment:
I doubt that the goals can be made right without breaking something. We also
should split report and validation goals. We should move this to a separate
dicussion. Too broad for now.
> If we would add the fork to compile or test-compile, would the compile
phase be called multiple times? e.g. mvn verify -> compile -> pmd:check >>
pmd:pmd >> compile?
Could be the case w/o an analysis.
> For the concrete issue
[MPMD-399](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPMD-399), I would either
remove the warning message (and ignore this whole discussion: if m-pmd-p is
used correctly, there are no problems). Or try to improve the logic, when we
issue the warning (we can easily fix the target/classes and/or
target/test-classes is missing/empty - but there might be other cases. Maybe
there is a different way to figure out, if the project has been compiled
already).
One the problems, as layed out in MPMD-399, is that if the param is set in
the parent and not all plugins have either/proper combo there will be always a
warning. For now, I would not put too much logic into it. You know PMD best. If
you think that the warning should stay as a safe guard I am fine with that. I
trust you, if you think that the confusion is not worth the warning, we should
remove it.
> Incorrect warning: The project X does not seem to be compiled. PMD results
> might be inaccurate.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MPMD-399
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPMD-399
> Project: Maven PMD Plugin
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: PMD
> Affects Versions: 3.22.0
> Reporter: AB-xdev
> Priority: Major
>
> PMD plugin is reporting the following warnings on in a multi-maven project:
> "The project X does not seem to be compiled. PMD results might be inaccurate."
> This is caused by the fact that not all modules have a
> * {{src/main/java}} or
> * {{src/test/java}} folder
> and therefore no {{target/classes}} or {{target/test-classes}} folders are
> generated.
> The affected code that causes the problem can be found here:
> [https://github.com/apache/maven-pmd-plugin/blob/1961d771ea585e9344c25dfde194ee64a1b9040b/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/PmdReport.java#L516-L532]
> h3. Reproduction example
> * Create a maven multi-module project
> * Leave {{src/main/java}} of one module empty
> * Execute {{pmd:aggregate-pmd}} or {{test pmd:aggregate-pmd-no-fork
> -DskipTests}}
> → (x) Warning is reported
> h3. Possible fixes
> * Make it possible to ignore this warning
> * Do not warn when at least {{target/classes}} or {{target/test-classes}} is
> present
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
