Strategy to record logical files but skip scanning them

[dennis-behm]

There are multiple artifacts which don't need to be scanned - for instance XML, JCL, PROCS and others. However, users would like to record them as a logical file to be able to use it in impact analysis, see also #200 .

Summary of changes:

• This PR changes the behaviour of dbb-zappbuild: rather then always scanning with the default DependencyScanner, it requires the user to provide a mapping to determine the scanner. It uses the existing build property dbb.scannerMapping which was used to override the scanner for ZUnitConfiguration files, but always used the DependencyScanner as a default.

• At the same time, it reorganises the build-conf and introduces a new properties file defaultApplicationSettings.properties to define default application configurations. To preserve backward compatibility and not to break existing pipelines, a default dbb.scannerMapping is define in the new default application settings file.

• It removes the additional ScannerUtilities.groovy from the list of utilities, because it was only used for backward compatibility reasons. DBB 2.0 includes the ZUnitConfigScanner.

[M-DLB]

Hi @dennis-behm - This looks good to me, just to confirm, why do you also define the dbb.scannerMapping = DependencyScanner in file.properties? If it's defined in build-conf/defaultApplicationSettings.properties, that should be sufficient, no?

[dennis-behm]

Hi @dennis-behm - This looks good to me, just to confirm, why do you also define the dbb.scannerMapping = DependencyScanner in file.properties? If it's defined in build-conf/defaultApplicationSettings.properties, that should be sufficient, no?

@M-DLB - I kept in both places. The definition in build-conf/defaultApplicationSettings.properties would be indeed sufficient. I specifically inserted it in build-conf to preserve backward compatibility. Maybe some applications have some specific requirements and need to define it in file.properties. Lets comment the definition in file.properties out and put in a reference to the defaults being defined in build-conf/defaultApplicationSettings.properties. How does that sound to you?

[M-DLB]

@dennis-behm Sounds good yes, it makes sense keep it commented in file.properties in case of any override needed.

[dennis-behm]

Based on a discussion with @drbruce-git , I am going to change the implementation to use the DependencyScannerRegistry API

[dennis-behm]

@drbruce-git, please review the changes of this implementation. It is now moved to the DependencyScannerRegistry API of DBB.