-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
chore: generate poms with grpc dependencies as test scoped #3072
Conversation
@@ -39,10 +39,12 @@ | |||
<groupId>com.google.protobuf</groupId> | |||
<artifactId>protobuf-java</artifactId> | |||
</dependency> | |||
{%- if repo in ['java-storage', 'java-spanner', 'java-dataproc'] %} | |||
<dependency> | |||
<groupId>com.google.api.grpc</groupId> | |||
<artifactId>proto-google-common-protos</artifactId> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think what was asked is grpc-google-common-protos
, not proto-google-common-protos
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
True, my bad! I corrected it.
@@ -72,16 +74,30 @@ | |||
<groupId>com.google.api.grpc</groupId> | |||
<artifactId>proto-google-iam-v1</artifactId> | |||
</dependency> | |||
{%- if repo in ['java-storage', 'java-spanner', 'java-dataproc'] %} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know I said hardcoding is not too bad if there is only a few, but I noticed that we already have excluded_dependencies that is used in pom generation, how much effort would it be to introduce a test_dependencies
as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
excluded_dependencies
prevents items from the existing_modules
list to be added into the final required_dependencies
list. required_dependencies
is then split into proto_modules
and grpc_modules
and passed into update_cloud_bom
.
Each gRPC module (from required_dependencies
-> grpc_modules
) passed into update_cloud_bom
is added as a <scope>test</scope>
dependency if not already existing. It does nothing if it's already existing.
Excluding the dependencies via .repo-metadata.json
would not cause the dependencies to be removed since this logic is only to prevent new dependencies from being added to the pom.
Edit: I misunderstood your point. I'll address it in the next comment of this thread.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adding a test_dependencies
config key in repo_metadata would make sense. We can intersect the contents of test_dependencies
and required_dependencies
to convert existing poms' dependencies to test-scoped.
I think the effort is small when it comes to fix_poms.py
(the hardcoded array is now obtained from repo-metadata).
The other part would be to have a mini-script to create a PR for all libraries in google-cloud-java except java-dataproc.
I guess we can keep adding entries to .repo-metadata
since we already have java-postprocessing-specific ones.
Conclusion: small effort.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We decided to rely on the monorepo
variable instead, since the only case where it would not compile is for java-dataproc
, but it was because it needed the transitive dependency proto-google-iam-v1
, so the correct approach is to also set its targeted dependencies as test-scoped and additionally include proto-google-iam-v1
(imported here).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you please remind me when fix_poms.py
is called? IIRC, both on new client library generation and as part of the post-processing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it's part of running our owlbot postprocessor
sdk-platform-java/library_generation/owlbot/bin/entrypoint.sh
Lines 61 to 64 in 6913db5
# write or restore pom.xml files | |
echo "Generating missing pom.xml..." | |
python3 "${scripts_root}/owlbot/src/fix_poms.py" "${versions_file}" "${is_monorepo}" | |
echo "...done" |
# as of July 2024, we have two dependencies that should be declared as | ||
# test-scoped: grpc-google-common-protos and grpc-google-iam-v1. Only in | ||
# java-storage, java-spanner and java-dataproc we keep them as they are | ||
TEST_SCOPED_DEPENDENCIES = ["grpc-google-common-protos", "grpc-google-iam-v1"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I understand why we need this part. Is the template change not enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The template is rendered only on new libraries, otherwise the function update_cloud_pom()
is called.
sdk-platform-java/library_generation/owlbot/src/fix_poms.py
Lines 532 to 541 in fdd9d27
if os.path.isfile(f"{artifact_id}/pom.xml"): | |
print("updating modules in cloud pom.xml") | |
if artifact_id not in excluded_poms_list: | |
update_cloud_pom( | |
f"{artifact_id}/pom.xml", proto_modules, grpc_modules, repo_metadata | |
) | |
elif artifact_id not in excluded_poms_list: | |
print("creating missing cloud pom.xml") | |
templates.render( | |
template_name="cloud_pom.xml.j2", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This golden file tests the changes in fix_poms.py
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@blakeli0 yes, this is the unit test that deals with this golden:
resources_dir = os.path.join(script_dir, "..", "resources", "test-owlbot") | |
class FixPomsTest(unittest.TestCase): | |
def test_update_poms_group_id_does_not_start_with_google_correctly(self): | |
ad_manager_resource = os.path.join(resources_dir, "java-admanager") | |
versions_file = os.path.join(ad_manager_resource, "versions.txt") | |
os.chdir(ad_manager_resource) | |
sub_dirs = ["ad-manager", "ad-manager-bom", "proto-ad-manager-v1", "."] | |
for sub_dir in sub_dirs: | |
self.__copy__golden(ad_manager_resource, sub_dir) | |
main(versions_file, "true") | |
for sub_dir in sub_dirs: | |
self.assertFalse(compare_pom_in_subdir(ad_manager_resource, sub_dir)) | |
for sub_dir in sub_dirs: | |
self.__remove_file_in_subdir(ad_manager_resource, sub_dir) |
@@ -104,6 +109,9 @@ def update_cloud_pom( | |||
if m.find("{http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0}artifactId") is not None | |||
] | |||
|
|||
if is_monorepo: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess this is more like a one time thing to fix the existing poms? After that, this logic would be a no-op?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With this change, if we ever declare this dep as compile-scoped in a monorepo library, then it will be turned back to test-scoped.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, to prevent accidental manual changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
Can you please update the description to reflect the recent changes before merging?
And update the dataproc module in google-cloud-java as a follow up?
@@ -104,6 +109,9 @@ def update_cloud_pom( | |||
if m.find("{http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0}artifactId") is not None | |||
] | |||
|
|||
if is_monorepo: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, to prevent accidental manual changes.
Quality Gate passed for 'gapic-generator-java-root'Issues Measures |
Quality Gate passed for 'java_showcase_integration_tests'Issues Measures |
Fixes googleapis/google-cloud-java#10037 ☕ ### Overview This will modify the behavior of library generation at the postprocessing stage. The main change is that generated _cloud_ poms (i.e. `google-cloud-${service}/pom.xml`) will now have the dependencies `proto-google-common-protos` and `grpc-google-iam-v1` declared as `<scope>test</scope>` if the libraries belong to a monorepo. ### Integration test It will be failing until we update the test branch. Once this approach is validated, I will proceed with updating the branch. ### Approach #### For new libraries Via template in `owlbot/teplates/poms/cloud_pom.xml.j2`. New libraries will have these two dependencies declared as test scope if they are part of a monorepo. #### For existing libraries The script `fix_poms.py` will now modify the existing poms by setting the two dependencies as test-scoped, only if they are part of a monorepo. ### Confirmation that it works * java-bigquerystorage: no effects since these dependencies are [not found in the pom](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Agoogleapis%2Fjava-bigquerystorage%20path%3Agoogle-cloud-bigquerystorage%2Fpom.xml%20grpc-google&type=code) * java-datastore: [no relevant changes](https://github.com/googleapis/java-datastore/pull/1530/files) since the dependencies are [not found in the pom](https://github.com/googleapis/java-datastore/blob/main/google-cloud-datastore/pom.xml) * java-firestore: [no relevant changes](googleapis/java-firestore#1764) since the one targeted dependency is [already declared as test scoped](https://github.com/googleapis/java-firestore/blob/main/google-cloud-firestore/pom.xml#L160-L164) * java-logging: [no relevant changes](googleapis/java-logging#1660)] since the dependencies are [not declared in the pom](https://github.com/googleapis/java-logging/blob/main/google-cloud-logging/pom.xml) * java-pubsub: no changes. Relevant dependency [already declared as test scoped](https://github.com/googleapis/java-pubsub/blob/2b15b0a3f43c9ccef663fedf0398375f58fd9183/google-cloud-pubsub/pom.xml#L135-L139) * java-pubsublite: [no relevant changes](googleapis/java-pubsublite#1692) since there are [no relevant dependencies declared in the pom](https://github.com/googleapis/java-pubsublite/blob/main/google-cloud-pubsublite/pom.xml) * java-spanner: ignored - dependency kept as is * java-storage: ignored - kept as is * **google-cloud-java: [91 poms affected](https://github.com/googleapis/google-cloud-java/pull/11031/files) by converting dependencies to test-scoped (PR only contains pom changes for simplicity + outdated googleapis_committish)** * We had a special situation with `java-dataproc` because it references `google-iam-v1` via `grpc-google-iam-v1`. However this is incorrect because what this library really needs is the proto classes. The fix for this was to treat this library as any other library and add `proto-google-iam-v1` as a dependency.
Fixes googleapis/google-cloud-java#10037 ☕
Overview
This will modify the behavior of library generation at the postprocessing stage. The main change is that generated cloud poms (i.e.
google-cloud-${service}/pom.xml
) will now have the dependenciesproto-google-common-protos
andgrpc-google-iam-v1
declared as<scope>test</scope>
if the libraries belong to a monorepo.Integration test
It will be failing until we update the test branch. Once this approach is validated, I will proceed with updating the branch.
Approach
For new libraries
Via template in
owlbot/teplates/poms/cloud_pom.xml.j2
. New libraries will have these two dependencies declared as test scope if they are part of a monorepo.For existing libraries
The script
fix_poms.py
will now modify the existing poms by setting the two dependencies as test-scoped, only if they are part of a monorepo.Confirmation that it works
java-dataproc
because it referencesgoogle-iam-v1
viagrpc-google-iam-v1
. However this is incorrect because what this library really needs is the proto classes. The fix for this was to treat this library as any other library and addproto-google-iam-v1
as a dependency.