[MBUILDCACHE-103] Allow incremental restore in case of plugin parameter mismatch

[reda-alaoui]

This PR adds configuration flag maven.build.cache.incrementalReconciliationOnParameterMismatch to allow the following behaviour. If a parameter mismatch is detected, the build will try to complete starting with the mismatched parameter instead of throwing the whole cache entry. At the end, it will save the result.

The correct behaviour of the operation is subordinated to the correct configuration of attachedOutputs parameter.

Orthogonal subject, but I think attachedOutputs should be set to the following values by default:

<attachedOutputs>
      <dirNames>
        <dirName>classes</dirName>
        <dirName>test-classes</dirName>
      </dirNames>
    </attachedOutputs>

---

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

• Make sure there is a MBUILDCACHE JIRA issue filed
  for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not
  require a JIRA issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without
  pulling in other changes.
• Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
• Format the pull request title like [MBUILDCACHE-XXX] - Fixes bug in ApproximateQuantiles,
  where you replace MBUILDCACHE-XXX with the appropriate JIRA issue. Best practice
  is to use the JIRA issue title in the pull request title and in the first line of the
  commit message.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Run mvn clean verify to make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check will
  be performed on your pull request automatically.
• You have run the Core IT successfully.

If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.

To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.

• I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004

• In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

[AlexanderAshitkin]

what is this check for?

[AlexanderAshitkin]

I'm not convinced that this logic is valid. If you have build 1 with the plugins [(X, parameters PX1), (Y, parameters PX1)], with the flag "on",the new cached build might be a result of [(X, parameters PX2), (Y, parameters PY1)]. The issue here is that without tracking inputs/outputs, we can't guarantee that reusing PY1 is valid if the first plugin changed parameters. It's possible that it relies on outputs from the first plugin and could yield a different result without the cache. This logic seems flawed to me at the moment. It might lead to all sorts of corruptions inadvertently. it probably could run for certain plugins in presence of additional metadata, but not in a general case.

This optimization could work for a leaf plugins (plugins which do not contribute and do not impact subsequent plugins) but that will require additional plugin metadata

[AlexanderAshitkin]

this hardcoded list of plugins doesnt look good and manifests a workaround which might not work in general case. What is it for?