Skip to content

Conversation

@snazy
Copy link
Member

@snazy snazy commented Nov 4, 2025

No description provided.

@snazy snazy marked this pull request as draft November 4, 2025 16:12
@snazy
Copy link
Member Author

snazy commented Nov 4, 2025

This is an initial draft against the 0.17 release tag as there's no 0.18 branch yet.
It seems to work.

I've included the HTML template included in #568.

The code is very much the same (except for all the things that are not in Java 8).

@snazy
Copy link
Member Author

snazy commented Nov 4, 2025

At least tests pass locally :)

Copy link
Contributor

@Claudenw Claudenw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Needs documentation generation.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add a method to RatTool public Map<String, GradleOption> gradleOptions() to return a sorted map of CLI option name to GradleOption (see mvnOptions, antOptions, cliOptions).

This will make the options available for documentation.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add a section to this pom to generate the site documentaiton.

See rat-plugin initial site generation

The result should generate markdown documentation for this component including a list of options similar to the maven and ant lists.

@ottlinger
Copy link
Contributor

@snazy I'd prefer to have this PR against master ..... before merging it we should clarify the roadmap for an upcoming release. To my mind the architecture discussions will mean a very long development time.
RAT0.17 took 2 years and people were complaining about long release cycles.

@Claudenw Not sure how fast we can transform RAT to become ready for modular clients?! Personally I'd try to avoid having multiple long running branches with contrary concepts being implemented, while downstream clients would prefer faster releases and bugfixes.

WDYT?

@snazy
Copy link
Member Author

snazy commented Nov 7, 2025

prefer to have this PR against master

Agree. #568 is there for master.

before merging it we should clarify the roadmap for an upcoming release.

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants