Skip to content
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

Allow to add a toolchain only - without updating settings.xml, JAVA_HOME and PATH. Only toolchains.xml must be extended. #552

Open
mhoffrog opened this issue Nov 6, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #553
Labels
feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic needs eyes

Comments

@mhoffrog
Copy link

mhoffrog commented Nov 6, 2023

Description:
Allow to add another toolchain only by a subsequent setup-java - only toolchains.xml must be updated with the additional JDK setup and the JDK specific JAVA_HOME_<jdk version> must be set.
No update of settings.xml, no add to PATH, no update of JAVA_HOME.

Justification:
In my scenario I run a first setup-java configuring settings.xml and setting up my JAVA_HOME JDK.
Then I determine a probable additionally required toolchain version from the compile target setting of my Maven projects POM.
If this is requiring a different JDK, then I am running another setup-java for this toolchain.
In this case I want to get the toolchains.xml being extended only and to preserve JAVA_HOME, PATH and settings.xml from my first setup-java.
Currently I am working around this requirement by a step preserving JAVA_HOME, PATH and settings.xml before the setup-java step and restoring those after that step. This is working fine so far.
Another config property for setup-java like e.g. add-toolchain-only would save those efforts!

Are you willing to submit a PR?
Yes - cannot promise a timeline yet.

@mhoffrog mhoffrog added feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic needs triage labels Nov 6, 2023
@IvanZosimov
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, @mhoffrog 👋 Thank you for the feature request, we will take a look and get back to your with our decision.

@TWiStErRob
Copy link

TWiStErRob commented Feb 25, 2024

I would like this too, use case similar to https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/73309 and https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/51280

Pretty much anyone who provides a composite action that runs a jar or JDK commands is affected. I have no idea how others do it, probably delegate the labor to every user 😞.

@mhoffrog
Copy link
Author

@TWiStErRob I did file PR #553 already and did keep it up to date with recent master - s. #553 (comment).
Unfortunately I do not get any further feedback nor answer on my comments on this PR - its a bit frustrating just getting no reaction for the time being.
@IvanZosimov Maybe you are all pretty busy - would there be a person in the team to assign for review or to put attention to this item?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic needs eyes
Projects
None yet
3 participants