I would deactivate error-prone with JDK 8 and only 'run' it on CI via a proper 
activated profile.

As far as I understand this is not an issue with JDK 11 so we should  have it 
on per default on Java > = 11.

Emmanuel

Le 16/06/2020 à 14:34, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> I have come to realise that the newer ErrorProne config for JDK8 added
> as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2109 doesn't
> actually work presently, i.e it isn't running. I have prepared a
> couple of alternative changes that do get it working again, but they
> themselves have issues and have raised a question for me.
>
> One approach was to go back to the older style ErrorProne-specific
> compiler approach when running on JDK8. The problem with that one is
> it requires downgrading back to ErrorProne 2.3.4 as its the last that
> supports that method. So that doesn't seem like a great idea as it
> blocks upgrades.
>
> The other continues using the newer style javac plugin approach which
> is being used for JDK11+ (and is required for 2.4.0+ generally) but
> resolving the issues with the config for JDK8 to get it running there.
> The concern with this one is that for the ErrorProne javac plugin to
> be registered on JDK8 you must fork the compiler, which happens on
> every execution of the maven plugin. This isn't speedy, and due to the
> vast numbers of modules in the build this happens _a lot_, so it
> really adds up. The forking appears to add nearing a couple of minutes
> to the overall build, on top of the couple minutes running ErrorProne
> looks to add itself. Between them the resulting build [only, with
> skipTests] is about 2.5 times longer on JDK8 with this in place than
> it is without ErrorProne in play at all.
>
> Having been through all this, I can't help wondering if it would be
> worth setting things up with ErrorProne in a profile, activated if
> enabled by a property. That could either be only for JDK8 (where it is
> slowest due to all the forks), or for all the JDK versions. It would
> still be set to always run in CI for PRs etc in any case. Thoughts?
>
> Robbie
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to