migrate to sbt 1.0.2

[larsrh]

Gets rid of this funny "compile-time" hack because sbt 1.0.x complains about something.

I have it on good notice that "provided" should be Good Enough™.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #77 into master will increase coverage by 0.27%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #77      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.63%   84.91%   +0.27%     
==========================================
  Files          18       18              
  Lines         358      358              
  Branches       21       21              
==========================================
+ Hits          303      304       +1     
+ Misses         55       54       -1

[ChristopherDavenport]

Where did these go on the upgraded versions of sbt-header?

[larsrh]

This is auto-detected from other settings now.

[dwijnand]

I think provided will keep it in pom.xml while compile-time won't. I think.

[alexandru]

@dwijnand isn't compile-time the default, aka the strongest dependency possible?

AFAIK when you want to exclude something from the pom.xml, you have to do a pomPostProcess — not sure how well it works in SBT 1.x

Here's what I did for scoverage:

  pomPostProcess := { (node: xml.Node) =>
    new RuleTransformer(new RewriteRule {
      override def transform(node: xml.Node): Seq[xml.Node] = node match {
        case e: Elem
          if e.label == "dependency" && e.child.exists(child => child.label == "groupId" && child.text == "org.scoverage") => Nil
        case _ => Seq(node)
      }
    }).transform(node).head
},

provided definitely keeps the dependency in the pom.xml file

[dwijnand]

What do you mean by "the default, aka the strongest dependency possible"?

It's an ad-hoc configuration created in this build (and cats).

It's an alternative to doing pomPostProcess, with, I think, the added value that it also works for ivy.xml (if publishing ivy style).

[larsrh]

It is true that macro-compat is still in the POM, but clients won't be pulling in the library, because it's in the provided scope. If this is a contentious issue, I can just change it back.

[ghost]

If this is a contentious issue

Well, I think it was in cats - typelevel/cats#1638, sbt/sbt#2503

perhaps this would help typelevel/cats#1889 ?

[larsrh]

I have reinstated the configuration now.