[MNG-7156] Parallel build can cause issues between clean and forked g…#476
[MNG-7156] Parallel build can cause issues between clean and forked g…#476gnodet wants to merge 4 commits intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
|
Will this also resolve |
I don't understand. This only adds a locking mechanism to avoid conflicts caused by parallel execution between the normal lifecycle and forked lifecycles, which can cause the same project to be build twice concurrently. This has nothing to do with |
…oals (code cleanup)
MartinKanters
left a comment
MartinKanters
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice proposal, I left some comments. Also, I think it's worth it to create at least an integration test. It might be annoying to build an IT, but covering this just in unit tests will be much harder.
cstamas
left a comment
cstamas
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool, I think I saw some of issues while using mvnd that should be solved...
Fwiw, it's not really urgent, as it has already been integrated into |
|
Two things:
|
| SessionData data = event.getSession().getRepositorySession().getData(); | ||
| Map<MavenProject, Lock> locks = ( Map ) data.get( LOCKS_KEY ); | ||
| // initialize the value if not already done (in case of a concurrent access) to the method | ||
| if ( locks == null ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to use SessionData#computeIfAbsent() if we release Resolver and integrate?
michael-o
left a comment
michael-o
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So this revolves around the idea that all elements subject to a project cannot be modified while the lock is obtained, so everything else concurrently is halted?
So as far as I understand this PR is global while PR #578 is rather local?
I had a closer look at both problems and proposed solutions. They are indeed related but for two different use cases. The This one #476 address the use case for synchronising between a standard lifecycle and a forked lifecycle, while #578 synchronises between a mojo execution for a given project and a mojo execution that has the reactor flag set. I'll work on a PR that addresses both problem at the same time. |
|
Resolve #8302 |
8 participants
…oals
Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:
for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not
require a JIRA issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without
pulling in other changes.
[MNG-XXX] - Fixes bug in ApproximateQuantiles,where you replace
MNG-XXXwith the appropriate JIRA issue. Best practiceis to use the JIRA issue title in the pull request title and in the first line of the
commit message.
mvn clean verifyto make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check willbe performed on your pull request automatically.
If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.
To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.
I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.