Support Artifactory publishing without the maven product info in the path

[tabboud]

What happened?

The Artifactory publisher only allows publishing to a destination that includes the full Maven product info as part of the path

https://artifactory.p.b/artifactory/<publish-repo>/<group>/<product>/<version>/<artifact>

Link to source where this is gathered:

distgo/publisher/artifactory/publisher.go

Line 103 in 333023a

productPath := publisher.MavenProductPath(productTaskOutputInfo, groupID)

The group-id is also a required argument, but I assume the reason it is required is due to the fact that it's always included in the destination path, as seen above.

distgo/publisher/artifactory/publisher.go

Line 88 in 333023a

groupID, err := publisher.GetRequiredGroupID(flagVals, productTaskOutputInfo)

What did you want to happen?

It should be possible to publish artifacts to artifactory with just the desired publish-repo rather than force the destination path to include the Maven product info.

Possible Solution

We can introduce another flag to the Artifactory publisher that allows it to publish to a flat hierarchy rather than inject the product info in the path.

https://artifactory.p.b/artifactory/<publish-repo>/<artifact>

By default, this flag can be false in that the existing behavior would be used. If set to true, then we would no longer inject the product info and just concatenate the desired published-repo with the artifact name.
We can continue to keep the group-id required in both situations, but it would only be used in the existing code path.

[nmiyake]

Thanks for documenting this -- definitely understand the issue, and I'm actually encountering something similar with the GitHub publisher.

I think there are basically 2 high-level approaches:

1. Add flags/modes that cover the scenarios we want (as described above, flag would control whether or not group ID is included)
2. Take an approach like we do for resolvers where we accept a template string that is appended after the base upload URL and allows users to basically specify how the URL is constructed and expose things like "group ID", "product" and "version"

We could also add both, although then we may have to make some decisions about how the different flags/settings interact with each other (or just support invocation in one mode versus another).

Given that historically we've seen good returns from standardization/locking down customization to some degree, the first approach (which aligns with what you suggested as well) may make more sense, although the second approach does provide more flexibility in scenarios where users may want more control over the naming/destination of their uploads.

[bmoylan]

@nmiyake @tabboud I've opened #346 with a proposed resolution: a flat-dir boolean option which omits the maven directories. Let me know what you think!