[MPMD-379] Upgrade to use PMD 7.0.0 by default #144

mkolesnikov · 2024-03-20T00:46:23Z

https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MPMD/issues/MPMD-379

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

Make sure there is a JIRA issue filed
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.
Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
Format the pull request title like [MPMD-XXX] - Subject of the JIRA Ticket,
where you replace MPMD-XXX with the appropriate JIRA issue. Best practice
is to use the JIRA issue title in the pull request title and in the first line of the
commit message.
Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
Run mvn clean verify to make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check will
be performed on your pull request automatically.
You have run the integration tests successfully (mvn -Prun-its clean verify).

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.

adangel

Thanks for the PR!

As mentioned in the comments, I'm going to release PMD 7.0.0 tomorrow, so this PR should be updated to use the final version then (which requires some more changes).

Since the switch from PMD6 to PMD7 is a major change, that impacts end users, this needs a bit more thought: The end users might need to migrate the rulesets as well, to be PMD 7 compatible. It's not just a change of the version...

I'm personally undecided, whether it would be OK to ship such an update in a minor version of maven-pmd-plugin. We obviously did this last time with 3.9.0, when upgrading from PMD 5.x to PMD 6.0.1.

In any case, we should also add this to the docs, e.g. here:

maven-pmd-plugin/src/site/apt/index.apt.vm

Lines 90 to 95 in d00a765

    
           * Upgrading Notes 
        
             <<Note:>> Starting with PMD 6.0.0 and Maven PMD Plugin 3.9.0, the rules have been reorganized 
        
             into categories, e.g. <<</category/java/bestpractices.xml>>>. So when upgrading to 
        
             Maven PMD Plugin 3.9.0 you should review your plugin configuration and/or custom ruleset. 
        
             See {{{./examples/usingRuleSets.html}Using Rule Sets}} for more information.

Since there is already a solution on how to use maven-pmd-plugin with PMD 7 (see pmd/pmd#4478), which will also work with the final PMD 7.0.0 release, there is no pressure to hurry this upgrade. MPMD-379 should be maybe renamed to be "Upgrade to use PMD 7.0.0 by default".

For what's worth, my previous work on this topic:

branch pmd7 - this was not updated for a while: master...pmd7
current m-pmd-p with pmd7+pmd7-compat: adangel@e8e1bc6

pom.xml

src/it/MPMD-244-logging/verify.groovy

src/it/MPMD-258-multiple-executions/invoker.properties

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/ExcludeViolationsFromFile.java

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/exec/CpdExecutor.java

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/exec/PmdExecutor.java

lapostoj · 2024-04-05T09:19:01Z

@adangel any blocker still with this one or could the plugin be released with the PMD 7 support? 🙂

adangel

Thanks for the updates.

I've finished review now and will shortly push some commits to fix the remaining issues.

any blocker still with this one or could the plugin be released with the PMD 7 support?

The only point is: @mkolesnikov Could you indicate on the PR that you either have signed the Apache ICLA or "declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License" by ticking the checkbox? Thanks!

If there are no objections against the plan to ship this upgrade in the next minor version 3.22.0, I'll merge this the next days.

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/CpdReport.java

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/exec/CpdExecutor.java

src/site/apt/index.apt.vm

src/site/apt/examples/upgrading-PMD-at-runtime.apt.vm

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/exec/PmdExecutor.java

src/site/apt/index.apt.vm

michael-o

A few small issues

src/it/MPMD-379-JDK21/invoker.properties

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/PmdReport.java

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/exec/CpdExecutor.java

michael-o

LGTM now

instagibb · 2024-04-16T23:01:31Z

Is there anything holding this up now? Really keen to start using this without the version workarounds

lapostoj · 2024-04-19T10:00:24Z

Hey @adangel, thanks for getting the PR merged!
I believe the new version has not been deployed and pushed to the mvn repository, any step missing there?

slawekjaranowski · 2024-04-19T10:45:44Z

@lapostoj - release under vote - https://lists.apache.org/thread/d0lkjhqv8ddwkw7vz7brlgv93mv1n86n

lapostoj · 2024-04-19T12:12:04Z

Ah my bad I didn't know that part of the process!
Sounds great then! 🙌

michael-o · 2024-05-04T19:23:24Z

@adangel That merge was a pile of junk. You imported all intermediate work into master making it impossible to trace down the actual change. Don't do that again please, always squash and rebase first. Clearly a -1 for the methodology.

cstamas · 2024-05-04T20:18:31Z

@michael-o please abstain from statements like these. Any contribution is welcome, and mistakes do happen (yes, squashing the PR would be good, but this is not the end of the world). @adangel Thank you!

michael-o · 2024-05-04T20:23:43Z

@michael-o please abstain from statements like these. Any contribution is welcome, and mistakes do happen (yes, squashing the PR would be good, but this is not the end of the world). @adangel Thank you!

I don't have a problem with the change, it is mostly fine. The merge is what I totally dislike.

michael-o · 2024-05-04T20:30:48Z

This change introduced now a failing test which did no bubble up in CI, but should have:

[INFO] Running org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.CpdReportTest
org.apache.maven.reporting.MavenReportException: Can't find CPD custom format xhtml: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.exec.CpdExecutor.createRenderer(CpdExecutor.java:251)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.exec.CpdExecutor.writeFormattedReport(CpdExecutor.java:226)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.exec.CpdExecutor.lambda$run$1(CpdExecutor.java:181)
        at net.sourceforge.pmd.cpd.CpdAnalysis.performAnalysis(CpdAnalysis.java:203)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.exec.CpdExecutor.run(CpdExecutor.java:174)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.exec.CpdExecutor.execute(CpdExecutor.java:64)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.CpdReport.executeCpd(CpdReport.java:204)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.CpdReport.canGenerateReport(CpdReport.java:156)
        at org.apache.maven.reporting.AbstractMavenReport.execute(AbstractMavenReport.java:143)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.AbstractPmdReportTestCase.generateReport(AbstractPmdReportTestCase.java:119)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.CpdReportTest.testInvalidFormat(CpdReportTest.java:129)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:177)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:142)
        at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:122)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:142)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:125)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:130)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:241)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:236)
        at org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner.run(JUnit38ClassRunner.java:90)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.execute(JUnit4Provider.java:316)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.executeWithRerun(JUnit4Provider.java:240)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.executeTestSet(JUnit4Provider.java:214)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.invoke(JUnit4Provider.java:155)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.runSuitesInProcess(ForkedBooter.java:385)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.execute(ForkedBooter.java:162)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.run(ForkedBooter.java:507)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.main(ForkedBooter.java:495)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: xhtml
        at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:387)
        at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:418)
        at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:352)
        at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:351)
        at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method)
        at java.lang.Class.forName(Class.java:264)
        at org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.exec.CpdExecutor.createRenderer(CpdExecutor.java:247)
        ... 31 more

Verififed against maven-pmd-plugin-3.21.2.

The actual reason is this change:

+                } catch (MavenReportException e) {
+                    LOG.error("Error while writing CPD report", e);
+                }

and the reason why it does not bubble up is because org.apache.maven.plugins.pmd.CpdReportTest.testInvalidFormat() does

        } catch (Exception e) {
            assertTrue(true);
        }

There is an exception thrown because the test file des not set localRepository parameter:

D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-pmd-plugin [master ≡ +0 ~1 -0 !]> git diff -U0
diff --git a/src/test/resources/unit/invalid-format/cpd-invalid-format-plugin-config.xml b/src/test/resources/unit/invalid-format/cpd-invalid-format-plugin-config.xml
index e3cff6c2..aca6d08e 100644
--- a/src/test/resources/unit/invalid-format/cpd-invalid-format-plugin-config.xml
+++ b/src/test/resources/unit/invalid-format/cpd-invalid-format-plugin-config.xml
@@ -38,0 +39 @@ under the License.
+          <localRepository>${localRepository}</localRepository>

michael-o · 2024-05-04T20:34:15Z

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/exec/CpdExecutor.java

+                }
+            });
+        } catch (IOException e) {
+            LOG.error("Error while executing CPD", e);


This is a bad change -- it swallows the exception, build continues.

michael-o · 2024-05-04T20:34:20Z

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/pmd/exec/CpdExecutor.java

+                        writeFormattedReport(report);
+                    }
+                } catch (MavenReportException e) {
+                    LOG.error("Error while writing CPD report", e);


This is a bad change -- it swallows the exception, build continues.

michael-o · 2024-05-04T20:36:45Z

@mkolesnikov Please rework this with a followup PR. for now, the flow is broken.

michael-o · 2024-05-04T20:38:00Z

There it is: https://github.com/apache/maven-pmd-plugin/actions/runs/8953082426/job/24591196710#step:6:1942

michael-o · 2024-05-04T21:04:41Z

Reminds of apache/maven-fluido-skin#39 (comment)

adangel · 2024-05-10T09:02:17Z

@adangel That merge was a pile of junk. You imported all intermediate work into master making it impossible to trace down the actual change. Don't do that again please, always squash and rebase first. Clearly a -1 for the methodology.

I was not aware, that the general rule of thumb for merging PRs is "squash and rebase". If this is the common
decision around the maven project, then I'd expect this to be clearly documented, e.g. on https://maven.apache.org/developers/conventions/git.html .
I'm missing there an example on how to merge PRs which consist of more than one commits. E.g. it says there
"commit it to a branch, fix it up, and merge the branch." instead of "commit it to a branch, fix it up and squash and rebase this branch onto master/main".
To be honest, I'm not sure if it would have prevented my merge push... (because I don't think I would have read this doc before pushing).

Following the discussion on apache/maven-fluido-skin#39 (comment) - which is very helpful - it seems
the decision is to try to have a linear history on the master/main branch:

Simply we require linear commit on master branch - from master perspective final result is important - we needn't history of work on PR in master.

This decision should be somehow officially be documented to be transparent for everyone...

For me, as a casual committer, who only pushes once every blue moon and working mostly on other projects, I would suggest to

Update the PR Template on GitHub with a section "Before merging... Maven Project requires a linear history, ... squash+rebase. Either before merge or whoever merges this. See also https://maven.apache.org/developers/conventions/git.html". I think, this would help to remember this decision.
Enforce via push/update hook to prevent merge commits pushed to master/main. GitHub has some options to enforce a linear history. I'm sure, the infra team can configure something similar on gitbox.apache.org. That would at least prevent someone like me from simply pushing a merge. Of course, it wouldn't prevent me from pushing the complete rebased history of a PR (which is also not desired)...

KolesnikovMS added 2 commits March 20, 2024 01:24

MPMD-379 PMD 7.0.0 support

848cdce

MPMD-379 fixed unit and integration tests

c1b357f

mkolesnikov changed the title ~~Feature/mpmd 379 pmd 7~~ [MPMD-379] PMD 7.0.0 support Mar 20, 2024

adangel self-requested a review March 20, 2024 06:07

adangel requested changes Mar 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

adangel and others added 3 commits March 22, 2024 12:55

Fix tests for PMD 7 compatibility

53d907b

[MPMD-379] Updated PMD to 7.0.0

6b7a3e8

[MPMD-379] Removed showPmdLog

19fdcf0

slachiewicz mentioned this pull request Mar 30, 2024

Bump pmdVersion from 6.55.0 to 7.0.0 #145

Closed

slachiewicz approved these changes Mar 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

adangel added 5 commits April 5, 2024 20:42

[MPMD-379] Remove deprecated CpdReport#createRenderer

f9449bc

[MPMD-379] Simplify language selection in CpdExecutor

00b9f13

[MPMD-379] Deprecate parameter "showPmdLog"

ed944d5

[MPMD-379] Improve upgrading notes

73b4010

[MPMD-379] Add IT for Java 21

193c037

adangel reviewed Apr 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

[MPMD-379] Fix build for Java8

1528f30

adangel approved these changes Apr 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

slachiewicz approved these changes Apr 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

michael-o requested changes Apr 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

adangel added 2 commits April 8, 2024 19:57

Fixups from review (apache#144)

4aaf0da

Fixups from review (apache#144)

f884af3

crammond mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2024

Bump PMD to version 7.0.0 runelite/runelite#17717

Open

michael-o self-requested a review April 11, 2024 14:14

michael-o approved these changes Apr 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

adangel self-assigned this Apr 17, 2024

adangel changed the title ~~[MPMD-379] PMD 7.0.0 support~~ [MPMD-379] Upgrade to use PMD 7.0.0 by default Apr 18, 2024

adangel merged commit 89a7cdb into apache:master Apr 18, 2024
19 checks passed

adangel added the enhancement label Apr 18, 2024

mahfouz72 mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2024

dependency: bump pmd.version from 6.55.0 to 7.0.0 checkstyle/checkstyle#14705

Closed

michael-o reviewed May 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

adangel mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024

[MPMD-395] Build doesn't fail for invalid CPD format #150

Open

8 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[MPMD-379] Upgrade to use PMD 7.0.0 by default #144

[MPMD-379] Upgrade to use PMD 7.0.0 by default #144

mkolesnikov commented Mar 20, 2024 •

edited by adangel

adangel left a comment

lapostoj commented Apr 5, 2024

adangel left a comment

michael-o left a comment

michael-o left a comment

instagibb commented Apr 16, 2024

lapostoj commented Apr 19, 2024

slawekjaranowski commented Apr 19, 2024

lapostoj commented Apr 19, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024

cstamas commented May 4, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024 •

edited

michael-o commented May 4, 2024 •

edited

michael-o May 4, 2024

michael-o May 4, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024

adangel commented May 10, 2024

	* Upgrading Notes

	<<Note:>> Starting with PMD 6.0.0 and Maven PMD Plugin 3.9.0, the rules have been reorganized
	into categories, e.g. <<</category/java/bestpractices.xml>>>. So when upgrading to
	Maven PMD Plugin 3.9.0 you should review your plugin configuration and/or custom ruleset.
	See {{{./examples/usingRuleSets.html}Using Rule Sets}} for more information.

[MPMD-379] Upgrade to use PMD 7.0.0 by default #144

[MPMD-379] Upgrade to use PMD 7.0.0 by default #144

Conversation

mkolesnikov commented Mar 20, 2024 • edited by adangel

adangel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lapostoj commented Apr 5, 2024

adangel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

michael-o left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

michael-o left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

instagibb commented Apr 16, 2024

lapostoj commented Apr 19, 2024

slawekjaranowski commented Apr 19, 2024

lapostoj commented Apr 19, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024

cstamas commented May 4, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024 • edited

michael-o commented May 4, 2024 • edited

michael-o May 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

michael-o May 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

michael-o commented May 4, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024

michael-o commented May 4, 2024

adangel commented May 10, 2024

mkolesnikov commented Mar 20, 2024 •

edited by adangel

michael-o commented May 4, 2024 •

edited

michael-o commented May 4, 2024 •

edited