-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support to passing a custom spa-build-config.json file #316
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
9a36741
to
5c5fb1f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would not want to merge this in without broader discussion and understanding of how this fits into our overall plan for O3 in the SDK. See my comments. Let's discuss. @ibacher FYI
@@ -122,6 +122,9 @@ public class BuildDistro extends AbstractTask { | |||
@Parameter(property = "appShellVersion") | |||
private String appShellVersion; | |||
|
|||
@Parameter(property = "spaConfigFile") | |||
private String spaConfigFile; | |||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't really understand how this would be used in the build-distro
goal. A distribution is intended to be something that is fully represented in an openmrs-distro.properties file. So any configuration needs to be able to be represented in that file - either as a spa.xxx
property, or as coordinates to an artifact of a known type. This is why/how we have used content packages as this known artifact/type.
In fact, I would rather see us remove most of the properties that are currently in this job, rather than add new ones, as I think most are probably ill-advised, and would have been better represented as configuration options inside of the openmrs-distro.properties file itself. @ibacher - thoughts?
@@ -165,7 +168,7 @@ else if (StringUtils.isNotBlank(distro)) { | |||
case REFAPP_3X_PROMPT: | |||
artifact = wizard.promptForRefApp3xArtifact(versionsHelper); | |||
} | |||
distribution = builder.buildFromArtifact(artifact); | |||
distribution = builder.buildFromArtifact(artifact, spaConfigFile); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Having to bolt on this extra property here is an indication that this isn't the way other things work in building the distro, and I'd like to avoid adding these special cases in.
@@ -153,6 +153,9 @@ public class Setup extends AbstractServerTask { | |||
@Parameter(property = "reuseNodeCache") | |||
public Boolean overrideReuseNodeCache; | |||
|
|||
@Parameter(property = "spaConfigFile") | |||
public String spaConfigFile; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should revisit the entire set of properties around how O3 is included in the SDK, before we add new properties in. For example - why do we have appShellVersion
and ignorePeerDependencies
, and overrideReuseNodeCache
here, and should they actually not be here. And how does the spaConfigFile
relate to this or not. @ibacher . My gut is that all of these should be removed in favor of something more aligned with the rest of the SDK and distributions.
@@ -239,10 +242,11 @@ private DistroProperties resolveDistroProperties(Server server) throws MojoExecu | |||
|
|||
if (REFAPP_3X_PROMPT.equals(choice)) { | |||
Artifact artifact = wizard.promptForRefApp3xArtifact(versionsHelper); | |||
Distribution distribution = builder.buildFromArtifact(artifact); | |||
return distribution.getEffectiveProperties(); | |||
Distribution distribution = builder.buildFromArtifact(artifact, spaConfigFile); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See earlier comment
throw new RuntimeException(e); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
else if (new Version(distroVersion).higher(new Version("3.0.0-beta.16"))) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The fate of this will depend on the other decisions we make in the questions I raise above, but we should review the hacks that already exist to support refapp 3.x.x here as we look at how best to support these use cases moving forward.
Description of what I changed
Issue I worked on
see https://openmrs.atlassian.net/browse/SDK-367
Checklist: I completed these to help reviewers :)
My IDE is configured to follow the code style of this project.
No? Unsure? -> configure your IDE, format the code and add the changes with
git add . && git commit --amend
I have added tests to cover my changes. (If you refactored
existing code that was well tested you do not have to add tests)
No? -> write tests and add them to this commit
git add . && git commit --amend
I ran
mvn clean install
right before creating this pull request andadded all formatting changes to my commit.
No? -> execute the above command
All new and existing tests passed.
No? -> figure out why and add the fix to your commit. It is your responsibility to make sure your code works.
My pull request is based on the latest changes of the master branch.
No? Unsure? -> execute command
git pull --rebase upstream master