ReturnFirst appears to be ignored

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I have a chain resolver with three entries:

<filesystem name="local">
   <artifact pattern="${ivy.local.root}/${ivy.artifact.pattern}"/>
   <ivy pattern="${ivy.local.root}/${ivy.ivy.pattern}"/>
</filesystem>

<svn name="cru"
  repositoryRoot="${ivy.cru.root}"
  userName="${ivy.cru.user}"
  userPassword="${ivy.cru.pass}"
  binaryDiff="false"
  cleanupPublishFolder="true">
  <artifact pattern="ivy/${ivy.artifact.pattern}"/>
  <ivy pattern="ivy/${ivy.ivy.pattern}"/>
</svn>

<svn name="common"
  repositoryRoot="${ivy.common.root}"
  userName="${ivy.common.user}"
  userPassword="${ivy.common.pass}"
  binaryDiff="false"
  cleanupPublishFolder="true">
   <artifact pattern="ivy/${ivy.artifact.pattern}"/>
   <ivy pattern="ivy/${ivy.ivy.pattern}"/>
</svn>

The cru repository is empty; all dependencies are in common. When I run 
resolve, the dependencies are found in common and downloaded, but Ivy reports 
errors about dependencies missing from the cru repository. Example:

[ivy:resolve]   No resource found at 
https://pncbin.choicepoint.net/svn/pnc/prod/cru_artifacts/ivy/j
unit/junit/4.6/junit.jar, returning default resource

Is reported error really an error? Can it be suppressed?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by Thornton...@gmail.com on 9 Dec 2010 at 9:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I've never used chained resolvers so I'm not familiar with how this works. Does 
this mean if an artifact is in one repository but not another that Ivy will 
then grab it from wherever it can find it and ignore missing artifacts?

Does IvySvn actually break your setup at the moment? Or are you just getting 
that message which you'd rather not see? Up until now that message has been 
very useful but if other resolvers don't report missing artifacts like that 
then I could change IvySvn to log that on debug level.

Original comment by massdosage on 20 Dec 2010 at 11:20

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The problem was resolved by upgrading to the latest version. According to 
another post, the message I was seeing was being logged at the wrong level.

Original comment by Thornton...@gmail.com on 20 Dec 2010 at 1:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

OK, good news!

Original comment by massdosage on 20 Dec 2010 at 2:01

• Changed state: Duplicate