Pass app model location to Maven test process

[oehme]

This aligns the behavior with the Gradle plugin and speeds up startup
because we no longer have to search for a POM file to find the workspace
location and load the app model.

It also makes Quarkus out-of-the-box compatible with Develocity test
distribution, because POMs are generally not transferred as inputs to the
distributed test workers.

[aloubyansky]

Thanks @oehme! Do you think we could keep the Jackson JSON binding in a separate module, out of the appmodel artifact? E.g. quarkus-appmodel-json or something? There are some basic API classes from which we probably don't want to link to Jackson API (such as Artifact*, PathTree, etc).

[oehme]

Do you think we could keep the Jackson JSON binding in a separate module, out of the appmodel artifact? E.g. quarkus-appmodel-json or something?

If I can't depend on Jackson in the appmodel project, then I can't use the binding annotations. This would mean writing a bunch of manual serialization/deserialization code to handle all the different types and polymorphism. And then everyone who currently uses BootstrapUtils would have to add a dependency on this new appmodel-json project anyway, so it doesn't really improve anything as far as I can see. So in my opinion, not a realistic/worthwhile option.

[oehme]

Fixed the formatting issue above.

[oehme]

The failures above are probably due to a merge conflict, I'll fix those up.

[oehme]

This should be passing now.

[oehme]

All green :) The flaky tests look like the same as on the mainline branch.

[fabricepipart1a]

Hi there !
Do you have any update on this matter. Amadeus (the company I work for) is very interested to have that feature. We contemplate huge gains to accelerate our builds that spend most of their time running QuarkusTests. Is there anything blocking the progress?

[aloubyansky]

I do have some updates. I have a branch where I'm investigating an alternative serialization/deserialization. The basics seem to be working. I need to test it more properly, which is a work in progress.

[fabricepipart1a]

Lovely. Thanks for the update!

[aloubyansky]

I opened #51430 for a review and further discussion.
It doesn't include a couple of project properties set in the mojo in this PR. That could be a separate PR and discussion.

[oehme]

I'll rework this PR to just do those changes, because they'll also be necessary for test distribution.

Thank you so much for your other PR!

[aloubyansky]

@oehme the alternative PR was merged. Could you please check whether it works for you?

[oehme]

Works great! I've adjusted this PR so it only contains two small changes that are still necessary for Maven.

[oehme]

@aloubyansky I've further simplified this down to just the app model system property. I managed to solve the deploy path problem a different way on our side by searching through the JSON file for any mentioned file paths and treating those as inputs for the remote test process.

[aloubyansky]

Thanks a lot @oehme!

[aloubyansky]

We should still add a few comments about why we pass that system property. If you like to add them, feel free to do that. Otherwise, I'll add them later.

[oehme]

Done :)

[oehme]

Rebased my branch to hopefuly get rid of those failures.

[oehme]

Looks like these are failing on main too. Can you fix that up, so we can be sure this branch doesn't break anything?

[aloubyansky]

Once #51573 has been merged, we'll rebase this one.

[aloubyansky]

I pushed a rebase to your branch @oehme

[quarkus-bot]

Status for workflow Quarkus CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus CI on commit 9a8f8e7.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

You can consult the Develocity build scans.

[oehme]

Thanks!