Jaudiotagger maven repository is offline
Issue #345
closed
id like to inform you that maven repository for this project does not work:
Any try to call get to url:
https://dl.bintray.com/ijabz/maven
returns forbidden only.
Comments (34)
-
-
I’ve got this building using jitpack.io
Add this to the repositories section of the pom.xml:
<repository> <id>jitpack.io</id> <url>https://jitpack.io</url> </repository>and change the jaudiotagger dependency to:
<dependency> <groupId>org.bitbucket.ijabz</groupId> <artifactId>jaudiotagger</artifactId> <version>v2.2.5</version> </dependency>
-
Yes, this repo works. Thank you!
-
I have the same issue
https://dl.bintray.com/ijabz/maven/net/jthink/jaudiotagger/2.2.3/jaudiotagger-2.2.3.pom returns forbidden. Anything under https://dl.bintray.com/ijabz/maven/ returns forbidden apparently.
This makes it impossible to use the library at all right now.
-
repo owner
No really, although this does need resolving for now just download and build locally.
-
Local build of tag v2.2.5 fails
Results : Failed tests: org.jaudiotagger.issues.Issue411Test#testIssue3 ComparisonFailure expected:<R.... Tests run: 1072, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Running org.jaudiotagger.issues.Issue411Test oct. 02, 2021 12:21:33 PM org.jaudiotagger.audio.mp3.MP3File readV2Tag GRAVE: Could not invoke DirectBuffer method - illegal access oct. 02, 2021 12:21:33 PM org.jaudiotagger.audio.mp3.MP3File readV2Tag GRAVE: Could not invoke DirectBuffer method - illegal access oct. 02, 2021 12:21:33 PM org.jaudiotagger.audio.mp3.MP3File readV2Tag GRAVE: Could not invoke DirectBuffer method - illegal access oct. 02, 2021 12:21:33 PM org.jaudiotagger.audio.mp3.MP3File readV2Tag GRAVE: Could not invoke DirectBuffer method - illegal access oct. 02, 2021 12:21:33 PM org.jaudiotagger.audio.mp3.MP3File readV2Tag GRAVE: Could not invoke DirectBuffer method - illegal access oct. 02, 2021 12:21:33 PM org.jaudiotagger.audio.mp3.MP3File readV2Tag GRAVE: Could not invoke DirectBuffer method - illegal access oct. 02, 2021 12:21:33 PM org.jaudiotagger.audio.mp3.MP3File readV2Tag GRAVE: Could not invoke DirectBuffer method - illegal access oct. 02, 2021 12:21:33 PM org.jaudiotagger.audio.mp3.MP3File readV2Tag GRAVE: Could not invoke DirectBuffer method - illegal access Tests run: 6, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.031 sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.jaudiotagger.issues.Issue411Test testIssue3(org.jaudiotagger.issues.Issue411Test) Time elapsed: 0.006 sec <<< FAILURE! junit.framework.ComparisonFailure: expected:<R...> but was:<r...> at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:81) at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:87) at org.jaudiotagger.issues.Issue411Test.testIssue3(Issue411Test.java:110)Tried with JDK 11:
openjdk version "11.0.12" 2021-07-20 LTS OpenJDK Runtime Environment Zulu11.50+19-CA (build 11.0.12+7-LTS) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Zulu11.50+19-CA (build 11.0.12+7-LTS, mixed mode)Why not just use Maven Central?
-
Something weird is happening with local maven build. In Eclipse IDE the test passes, I can see that genre tag value “rock” is identified as 17 in that case, which results in sentence case Rock. But when build with maven the TagField.toString() shows just “rock”.
P.S. Also if I run just that specific testcase with maven - it passes. Apparently it is affected by some other tests running before it.
I’m investigating this - but this is a pain. All this just because somehow the de-facto standard for everyone the Central Maven Repository is not good enough for you.
-
P.P.S. Figured it out -
TagOptionSingleton.getInstance().isWriteMp3GenresAsText()is set tofalseby default, but some of testcases seem to set it totrue, which breaksIssue411Test.testIssue3()My local fix:
diff --git a/srctest/org/jaudiotagger/issues/Issue411Test.java b/srctest/org/jaudiotagger/issues/Issue411Test.java index b8e220af..aab2a3ad 100644 --- a/srctest/org/jaudiotagger/issues/Issue411Test.java +++ b/srctest/org/jaudiotagger/issues/Issue411Test.java @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ import org.jaudiotagger.audio.AudioFile; import org.jaudiotagger.audio.AudioFileIO; import org.jaudiotagger.tag.FieldKey; import org.jaudiotagger.tag.Tag; +import org.jaudiotagger.tag.TagOptionSingleton; import org.jaudiotagger.tag.id3.ID3v23Tag; import java.io.File; @@ -92,6 +93,7 @@ public class Issue411Test extends AbstractTestCase public void testIssue3() throws Exception { + TagOptionSingleton.getInstance().setWriteMp3GenresAsText(false); Exception caught = null; try {
-
P.P.P.S. This whole thing made me look at the code - and oh my, didn’t authors ever hear of generics or a switch statement? The amount of compiler warnings (mostly about raw types, but even some for dead code!) and if-else-if-else-if over enums is staggering.
P4.S. A little PR for most obvious null-pointer cases: https://bitbucket.org/ijabz/jaudiotagger/pull-requests/68/fixed-dangerous-dead-code-issues-potential
-
repo owner
The code is originally java 1.4, generics/enums etc were not in Java back then, feel free to submit PR with improvements.
-
Sure
First PR aboveAlso on master branch I get same issue with unit tests but in Vorbis test.
My local fix:diff --git a/srctest/org/jaudiotagger/tag/vorbiscomment/VorbisWriteTagTest.java b/srctest/org/jaudiotagger/tag/vorbiscomment/VorbisWriteTagTest.java index 92604700..89224dc4 100644 --- a/srctest/org/jaudiotagger/tag/vorbiscomment/VorbisWriteTagTest.java +++ b/srctest/org/jaudiotagger/tag/vorbiscomment/VorbisWriteTagTest.java @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ public class VorbisWriteTagTest extends AbstractTestCase */ public void testWriteTagToFile() { + TagOptionSingleton.getInstance().setWriteMp3GenresAsText(false); TagOptionSingleton.getInstance().setVorbisAlbumArtistReadOptions(VorbisAlbumArtistReadOptions.READ_ALBUMARTIST); Exception exceptionCaught = null; try
-
Updated PR with fixes for over 800 compiler warnings. Plus one more stabilization for unit test. Please review, @IJabz
-
Ok, 3 PRs there fixing practically all compiler warnings - waiting for your prompt review.
-
repo owner
Waiting for my prompt review, are you my boss ?
You are some annoying pita with your entitled comments.
-
This project is used by one of my favourite tools. Thank you for the open source work IJabz. It's enabled some of the things I use at home that have given me a lot of pleasure. Sending some love your way and if you have a patreon or something I'll buy you a few beers too 🍻
-
Dude, you’re using this code in commercial products that make you money - right? I’ve just contributed a metric ton of fixes to it completely free (spent all my weekend on this stuff) - and you are annoyed? Because I asked to review a PR? What the hell?
-
Dude, your tone has been derisory, arrogant, and unpleasant in all the comments you made. What do you expect?
-
The library repo is broken for a long time and nobody is doing anything to fix it. The build is broken because of broken unit tests. In short - the state of the project is terrible. What does this deserve - a praise?
But my comments don’t matter - my actions matter. And my actions so far was to spend 2 days coding for the benefit of this library (which is (C) not me in the end). All I asked for was to review the PR. Apparently this is too much to ask for.
I’m seriously considering deleting these PRs now - you don’t deserve the work done.
-
Your conduct matters, you can't come in here on your high horse and start mocking someone else's work, that's open source, then click your fingers at them and expect them to review the changes your proposing. Your comments absolutely matter because this sort of behaviour is what puts people off of contributing to open source projects
-
Your repo is broken, your unit tests are broken - I’m glad to contribute fixes (which I already did), but I never signed up to contribute praise.
I’m not going to produce sweet lies and compliments on problems - if there are problems I will talk about them as such. This is called truth. Deal with it. -
No one's asking you for praise, no one owes you anything either. If you want to contribute some fixes great, why should the repo owner have to put up with your abusive tone during the process though?
-
feel free to submit PR with improvements
How’s that not arrogance? It is.
But I did submit the PRs, huge PRs with tons of work, 2 days of work for free for your benefit. For a library that makes you money in your commercial projects. -
If you want to contribute some fixes great
If? I already did. Never asked for any praise for that. Just a usual PR review (which I don’t need cause my fork of the repo already has all the fixes - your fork needs it, not mine).
You guys are the ones having abusive tone.
Now I’m supposed not to just contribute code, but also be meek and praise repo owner (for not fixing the maven repo for months?), yada yada. What are all these demands? Are you my boss? Am I the one making money of this library or having my name on it? No, I am not the one. -
Not my library, I just don't like the way you're messaging on this issue, it's disrespectful and has no place in collaborative work
-
Tell me please one thing - for how long is the maven repo broken now? How long is this issue open?
-
This is the bintray removal that broke it. Why does that give you the right to mock other people's work?
-
You didn’t answer. Can you please provide an answer - how long is the repo missing? (And it’s not a Bintray fault - there is no reason to use Bintray when Maven Central Repo is there available for everyone.)
FYI, I never mocked anyone’s work - don’t make things up. But I do identify (and fix) real serious issues here, with “open source” that can’t be used - because no repo is available for months, and local build is broken because of broken unit tests.
-
Youre a very angry person: “This whole thing made me look at the code - and oh my, didn’t authors ever hear of generics or a switch statement? The amount of compiler warnings (mostly about raw types, but even some for dead code!) and if-else-if-else-if over enums is staggering.” I'd probably just ignore your work if it was me, but it's not. I hope the owner treats you better than I would
-
No really, although this does need resolving for now just download and build locally.
How about this for arrogance? Yes, really.
The tests were broken - but “go build locally”. Is this not arrogance?I fixed your tests, but you don’t even want to review PRs. How’s that for arrogance?
-
Go have a beer or something, I can't be bothered anymore
-
I'd probably just ignore your work
Please do - you don’t deserve it.
All the issues I wrote about are true. You can look it up yourself - these are all facts. There are over 800 compiler warnings in the code.
The code does use generics but very sporadically (so explanation that it was written for Java 1.4 is weird). Etc.
All these issues are real - I didn’t make them up. But I did fix them.
Go have a beer or something
Go contribute some fixes or something - instead of telling me what to do. You are very arrogant dude, very!
-
repo owner
thanks Steven https://test.jthink.net/jaudiotagger/donate.jsp - Mykola you should listen to Steven, i will look at your PR when I can.
-
For anyone still looking for a working maven repo - this fork has a proper one: https://github.com/ealva-com/ealvatag
-
repo owner
- changed status to closed
Closing as I cant fix bintray and we alreay have issues about missing fro maven repo that i am trying to resolve.
- Log in to comment
Confirmed! The bintray Maven repo is not accessible due to
403 Forbidden.When configuring
pom.xmlas shown in README the Maven build fails:[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project ...: Could not resolve dependencies for project ...: Failed to collect dependencies at net.jthink:jaudiotagger:jar:2.2.3: Failed to read artifact descriptor for net.jthink:jaudiotagger:jar:2.2.3: Could not transfer artifact net.jthink:jaudiotagger:pom:2.2.3 from/to jaudiotagger-repository (https://dl.bintray.com/ijabz/maven): Authorization failed for https://dl.bintray.com/ijabz/maven/net/jthink/jaudiotagger/2.2.3/jaudiotagger-2.2.3.pom 403 Forbidden -> [Help 1]