mbeddr.core icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
mbeddr.core copied to clipboard

platform artifact without mps-extensions

Open coolya opened this issue 3 years ago • 6 comments

build: add separate platform artifact

Added a new artifact to the mbeddr platform that doesn't repackage mps-extensions. It exposes the dependency to mps-extensions via the pom. This allows consumers of the artefact to decided which mps-extensions version they would like to use.

This change breaks existing build scripts because of the new MPS build solution that does only build the mbeddr platform. To fix this open the build script in MPS and press F5 to fix all the references.

The artefact that repackaged mps-extensions is still present and remains untouched. Down stream projects do not need to change their gradle scripts.

coolya avatar Oct 18 '21 16:10 coolya

Looks good but the breaking change is unfortunate. Since most projects are currently using 2020.3, can we copy the relevant parts in 2020.3 so that it remains compatible, and apply the breaking change to 2021.1 only?

sergej-koscejev avatar Oct 19 '21 08:10 sergej-koscejev

Looks good but the breaking change is unfortunate. Since most projects are currently using 2020.3, can we copy the relevant parts in 2020.3 so that it remains compatible, and apply the breaking change to 2021.1 only?

I tried that first but got a bunch of "module visible from x and y" errors. I didn't investigate further why. I can take another look at this later. For me there is no urgent pressure right now to port this back to 2020.3. My initial problem with mps-extensions is fixed for now. Might be better to just to it in 2021.1 then and projects get change when they do the migration.

coolya avatar Oct 19 '21 11:10 coolya

Let's do it in 2021.1 only then.

sergej-koscejev avatar Oct 19 '21 12:10 sergej-koscejev

Sorry for the huge delay I only got around working on this now. I rebased the changes onto master and changed the target branch.

coolya avatar Feb 15 '22 14:02 coolya

@sergej-koscejev do we still want this PR to be merged?

alexanderpann avatar Apr 29 '24 16:04 alexanderpann

@sergej-koscejev do we still want this PR to be merged?

Yes. I think we may want to revisit the names later (I would make the "slim" artifact the default and have a qualifier for the "fat" one: -bundled, -all, or something like that) but I think we can merge it to move forward.

sergej-koscejev avatar Apr 30 '24 10:04 sergej-koscejev