Could you raise issues for the `all` phase not containing children
subprojects, and eventually for a new `each` phase ?
Le lun. 17 mars 2025 à 21:13, Karl Heinz Marbaise
a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to build a project with a number of subprojects..
>
> I'm binding a plugin (just echoing) like
I think thats agood idea and easy understandable by users. As already said by
Maarten they know this by JUnit and others
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> Am 18.03.2025 um 18:34 schrieb Guillaume Nodet :
>
> Yeha, we could add *each* in addition to the *all* phase.
>
>> Le mar. 18 mars 2025 à 15:1
Yeha, we could add *each* in addition to the *all* phase.
Le mar. 18 mars 2025 à 15:18, Maarten Mulders a
écrit :
> Thinking out loud... would it make more sense to name those phases
> "before:each" and "after:each" - following the vocabulary that e.g.
> JUnit uses?
>
>
> - Maarten
>
> On 18/03/
Hi,
On 18.03.25 15:17, Maarten Mulders wrote:
Thinking out loud... would it make more sense to name those phases
"before:each" and "after:each" - following the vocabulary that e.g.
JUnit uses?
I already wrote something about that...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
- Maarten
On 18/03/2025
Thinking out loud... would it make more sense to name those phases
"before:each" and "after:each" - following the vocabulary that e.g.
JUnit uses?
- Maarten
On 18/03/2025 12:24, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
The `all` phase is executed for each project. But you can avoid the plugin
execution to be
The `all` phase is executed for each project. But you can avoid the plugin
execution to be inherited by setting inherited="false" on the execution.
I've spotted a bug I think, as the definition of this phase does not
reference child projects, so they may not be executed at the correct time.
Could
