Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-07 Thread Robert Scholte
+1 Robert On Sat, 05 May 2018 13:46:45 +0200, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2018-05-05 um 13:23 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Sat 5 May 2018 at 09:13, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2018-05-05 um 09:15 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Thu 3 May 2018 at 22:10, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2018-05-02

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-05 Thread Michael Osipov
Am 2018-05-05 um 13:23 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Sat 5 May 2018 at 09:13, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2018-05-05 um 09:15 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Thu 3 May 2018 at 22:10, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2018-05-02 um 10:41 schrieb Robert Scholte: I don't see a new test[1][2], only rewrites

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-05 Thread Stephen Connolly
On Sat 5 May 2018 at 09:13, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2018-05-05 um 09:15 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > On Thu 3 May 2018 at 22:10, Michael Osipov wrote: > > > >> Am 2018-05-02 um 10:41 schrieb Robert Scholte: > >>> I don't see a new test[1][2], only rewrites to confirm there's no > >>> regress

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-05 Thread Michael Osipov
Am 2018-05-05 um 09:15 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On Thu 3 May 2018 at 22:10, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2018-05-02 um 10:41 schrieb Robert Scholte: I don't see a new test[1][2], only rewrites to confirm there's no regression. I understand the issue, but we just need to be sure that nobody in t

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-05 Thread Stephen Connolly
On Thu 3 May 2018 at 22:10, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2018-05-02 um 10:41 schrieb Robert Scholte: > > I don't see a new test[1][2], only rewrites to confirm there's no > > regression. > > > > I understand the issue, but we just need to be sure that nobody in the > > future thinks that File.toURI

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-03 Thread Michael Osipov
Am 2018-05-02 um 10:41 schrieb Robert Scholte: I don't see a new test[1][2], only rewrites to confirm there's no regression. I understand the issue, but we just need to be sure that nobody in the future thinks that File.toURI() is short for File.toPath().toUri() Robert [1] https://github.c

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-02 Thread Michael Osipov
There is a preliminary test in [1] and the failure in [2]. The best I can do is to leave the IT as-is, put a max boundary 3.5.4) and add a new IT for the Path solution. The unit test would be assertFalse() accompanied with a new test for this issue. Moreover, I will check for baseUri.startsWi

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-02 Thread Robert Scholte
I don't see a new test[1][2], only rewrites to confirm there's no regression. I understand the issue, but we just need to be sure that nobody in the future thinks that File.toURI() is short for File.toPath().toUri() Robert [1] https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/43b34598629f086523a333

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-01 Thread Michael Osipov
Am 2018-05-01 um 19:40 schrieb Robert Scholte: Hi Michael, to me it looks like the tests don't proof there's an issue. I only see that testDir.toURI() being replaced with testDir.toPath().toUri() while the actual value stays the same. No, it doesn't on Windows. File#toURI() is broken. Please

Re: Second MNG-6386

2018-05-01 Thread Robert Scholte
Hi Michael, to me it looks like the tests don't proof there's an issue. I only see that testDir.toURI() being replaced with testDir.toPath().toUri() while the actual value stays the same. I would expect at least one new test that fails now, but will succeed with the change. thanks, Robert

Second MNG-6386

2018-05-01 Thread Michael Osipov
Folks, who seconds MNG-6386 for 3.5.4 which I have found during SCM-877. ${project.baseUri} is an invalid URL. NIO2 offers a solution for that. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional c