This message was deleted.

I think it is if you really want to do that.

you want a single command to build all the modules in a multimodule project?

Use case would be when I switch branch and want to rebuild the whole project with no apparent dependency (a service that call another through an http call), I don’t want to figure out what I should rebuild ; and let Gradle rebuild every build that changed. What would you consider for this? Endre yes, I would like one single command to build a composite project

Isn’t that the default behaviour if you simply call

./gradlew build

?

how about a script in

settings.gradle.kts

which crawls for all the potential sub-projects (any folder with a

build.gradle.kts

file inside), and for them, apply this:

matchingFiles.forEach {
    val relativePath = it.relativeTo(rootDir)
        val projectName = ":${rootProject.name}-${relativePath.path.replace('/', '-')}"
        include(projectName)
        project(projectName).projectDir = it
}

Not in case of a composite build @Niels Doucet, task build doesn’t exist at root.

this is what I use instead of manually adding all the modules manually

Isn’t that the default behaviour if you simply call

./gradlew build

?

Yes and no. It invokes all

build

tasks of the main project. Included builds are only built if used and only the parts that are used I think. So for example only their jars are built, but no tests run and so on.

@Endre Deak what I did is: build.gradle.kts

tasks.register("build") { dependsOn(gradle.includedBuilds.map { it.task(":build") }) }

thing is you need all your includedBuilds to have a build task, which is not necessarily the case

Check

./gradlew :api:tasks --all

. I guess there is

build

in some subproject. And if you do

tasks

it also shows the tasks that would match by pattern (

./gradlew build

executes

build

in all projects of a multi-project build where it is found). But I guess you will then not find a task

build

in the actual root project. This is indeed misleading if it is the case and should maybe display differently when called on an included build. If my assumption is correct I'd recommend you open an issue about it.

Ok, your assumption is indeed correct 👍 I’ll fill an issue tonight ; thank you for all your answers!