Fix off issue #22 <?m2e execute onConfiguration?> fails if pom is big…#23
Fix off issue #22 <?m2e execute onConfiguration?> fails if pom is big…#23rfscholte merged 3 commits intocodehaus-plexus:masterfrom
Conversation
…s if pom is big enough (8kb) * fixed pom parser, as logic to check for x-m-l letters does not respected input tokenization
|
As far as I know there already configuration possibilities for m2e like this: <pluginManagement>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<groupId>org.eclipse.m2e</groupId>
<artifactId>lifecycle-mapping</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0</version>
<configuration>
<lifecycleMappingMetadata>
<pluginExecutions>
<pluginExecution>
<pluginExecutionFilter>
<groupId>some-group-id</groupId>
<artifactId>some-artifact-id</artifactId>
<versionRange>[1.0.0,)</versionRange>
<goals>
<goal>some-goal</goal>
</goals>
</pluginExecutionFilter>
<action>
<ignore/>
</action>
</pluginExecution>
</pluginExecutions>
</lifecycleMappingMetadata>
</configuration>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</pluginManagement> |
|
yes - this was standard up to m2e 1.6, but the new notation (<?m2e) has some advantages - especially in big pom.xml files. Ironically this big pom.xml cannot be parsed at the moment. It's supported by XML standard, so the parser is - in this niche - non standard compliant |
|
I'm missing a unittest to confirm the fix. Would be nice if you can provide that as well. |
|
Seems be be related to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6216 |
added unit tests
|
@rfscholte tests added |
|
Thanks. But is seems that if I only apply the test, it is already running succesfully... |
fixed unit test, so it fails for the old code * old unit test implementation was trapped by the buffer resizing (for the one, big 10k chars xml comment), so this was tailored into 10 * 1000 chars xml comments
|
you are correct - test is fixed now, so it fails for the old code. i was trapped by the buffer resizing, which accidentally let the test never fail ( |
|
Exactly the reason why unittests are required :) Thanks for the patch! |
… enough (8kb)
** all other occurences of <? are still ignored, but now: also when they appear behind READ_CHUNK_SIZE