Use publishTo value when it is defined. #4931
Conversation
|
Ping @dwijnand |
|
I'll rebase to the correct branch |
713a8e1 to
ce118f8
Compare
Even with `publishArtifact := false` the user is still forced to define a (dummy) resolver that's never used, e.g. `publishTo := { Some("publishMeNot" at "https://publish/me/not") }`
Otherwise the following error is thrown:
```
publish
[error] java.lang.RuntimeException: Repository for publishing is not specified.
[error] at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:27)
[error] at sbt.Classpaths$.$anonfun$getPublishTo$1(Defaults.scala:2436)
[error] at scala.Option.getOrElse(Option.scala:121)
[error] at sbt.Classpaths$.getPublishTo(Defaults.scala:2436)
[error] at sbt.Classpaths$.$anonfun$ivyBaseSettings$48(Defaults.scala:1917)
```
|
The travis failure is from MIMA: |
|
Yeah, you need to create new method. |
ce118f8 to
51a41e1
Compare
|
done, needs new review and approval |
…g repository if publishArtifact is false
51a41e1 to
9160908
Compare
| if (publishArtifact.value) getPublishTo(publishToOption).name else "local" | ||
| }, | ||
| checksums.in(publish).value.toVector, | ||
| getPublishTo(publishTo.value, publishArtifact.value).name, // error if publishTo is None and publishArtifact is true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
publish / skip might be better. See discussion here - #3136
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well... I don't mind the new solutoin, but in any case the current code on lines 2342-2344 is clearly a bug and should be replaced soon with some sane alternative.
How about just merging this PR and then working the publish / skip into it as #3136 gets implemented.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
publish / skip was implemented here - #3380
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So you mean that instead of publishArtifact.value we should have here (skip in publish).value ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, it should be !(skip in publish).value, since you could have published artifacts even if unscoped publishArtifact.value returns false.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am wondering if a better fix would be to just revert #3760
There was a problem hiding this comment.
responded on #3760 (comment) - sounds like reverting that one is the way to go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#3760 is what broke our build so if that is reverted, all is fine for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@eed3si9n is it certain that if skip in publish is true, then nobody depends on the publishConfiguration ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
publish, publishLocal, publishSigned, and sbt-bintray respect the skip in publish, so that should cover the relevant party.
|
Closing this in favor of #4934 |
Don't give error about missing repository if publishArtifact is false