Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 973913
ruleFlow components are missing in BRE
Last modified: 2014-08-06 16:15:56 EDT
Description of problem: The ruleFlow related component are missing in BRE, which includes jbpm-flow, jbpm-flow-builder, jbpm-bpmn2, jbpm-persistence-jpa. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Pull request is sented on https://github.com/droolsjbpm/jbpm/pull/168
Ryan, The pull request doesn't seem to be working for me (note that I did change the name to ruleflow-bin first). I first get a warning: [WARNING] The following patterns were never triggered in this artifact inclusion filter: o 'org.jbpm:jbpm-bpmn2' o 'org.jbpm:jbpm-flow' o 'org.jbpm:jbpm-flow-builder' o 'org.jbpm:jbpm-persistence-jpa' And it fails with: [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin:2.3:single (zips) on project jbpm-distribution: Failed to create assembly: Error creating assembly archive ruleflow-bin: You must set at least one file. -> [Help 1] Could you explain what the result should be? A zip that contains these 4 jbpm jars? Or also their dependencies (and if so, inside a lib folder)? What about all the drools dependencies, also just in the lib folder? Might it not be easier simply copying these 4 jars somewhere during the product build? Kris
(In reply to Kris Verlaenen from comment #2) > Ryan, > > The pull request doesn't seem to be working for me (note that I did change > the name to ruleflow-bin first). I first get a warning: > [WARNING] The following patterns were never triggered in this artifact > inclusion filter: > o 'org.jbpm:jbpm-bpmn2' > o 'org.jbpm:jbpm-flow' > o 'org.jbpm:jbpm-flow-builder' > o 'org.jbpm:jbpm-persistence-jpa' > > And it fails with: > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin:2.3:single (zips) on project > jbpm-distribution: Failed to create assembly: Error creating assembly > archive ruleflow-bin: You must set at least one file. -> [Help 1] > I run the command under top folder of jbpm by "mvn -Dfull clean install" (mvn >=3.0.3). If you run it only in "jbpm-distribution", this error might happened. The assembly uses the <moduleSets> which possible requires the build trigger the other modules as well. > Could you explain what the result should be? A zip that contains these 4 > jbpm jars? Or also their dependencies (and if so, inside a lib folder)? > What about all the drools dependencies, also just in the lib folder? The result should be "4 jbpm jars+ dependencies". I didn't put the dependencies into lib since no lib folder is for drools dependencies as well. I suppose it's convinent for classpath setting. But I am ok with both way. > > Might it not be easier simply copying these 4 jars somewhere during the > product build? The problem here is that we should include the dependencies for each jar.
Instead of trying to figure out how to combine the existing drools distribution, the jbpm distribution, with now a new jbpm-ruleflow distribution and then still having to figure out how to create a new (bpms and brms version of) droolsjbpm-integration distribution, maybe we could just try to create 2 new distirbutions as part of the droolsjbpm-integration build: one a brms distribution and one a bpms distribution, each containing all the necessary jars + their dependencies from all core repositories?
Yep, that would also serve the purpose. I think the problem we need to consider is that we pickup the correct of depenencies for drools and jbpm jars no matter how we package them.
The jboss-brms-engine.zip contains all mentioned jars as expected. However, jboss-brms-manager (both 'deployable' and 'eap6' variants) lacks jbpm-persistence-jpa-6.0.0.Beta5.jar in WEB-INF/lib. I would expect the jar to be included, please correct me if I am wrong.
Since jboss-brms-manager does not include any runtime capabilities, it seems correct that jbpm-persistence-jpa is not included in that war (only in the zip). Setting status back to ON_QA as a result.
Thanks for clarification, then this issue can be considered verified on DR6.