Adding the external jar in Intellij (2018.1) currently fails due to a duplicate source directory (sdks/java/extensions/protobuf/src/main/java).
The build as such also fails, with: error: warnings found and -Werror specified Ismaël found removing https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/buildSrc/src/main/groovy/org/apache/beam/gradle/BeamModulePlugin.groovy#L538 as workaround. On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:55 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Seems reasonable, but why exactly may we need the model (or protobuf > related things) in the future in the SDK ? wasn’t it supposed to be > translated into the Pipeline proto representation via the runners (and > in this case the dep reside in the runner side) ? > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:50 AM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Got a fix[1] for Andrews issue which turned out to be a release blocker > since it broke performing the release. Also fixed several minor things like > javadoc that were wrong with the release. Solving it allowed me to do the > publishing in parallel and cut the release time from 20+ mins to 8 mins on > my machine. > > > > 1: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5936 > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:51 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> We discussed this in person, sounds like my issue is known and will be > fixed shortly. I'm running builds with '-Ppublishing' because I need to > generate release artifacts for bundling the Beam SQL shell with the Google > Cloud SDK. Hope to eventually just use the Beam release, but we are > currently cutting a release off master every week to quickly iterate on bug > fixes. > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:39 PM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Andrew, to my knowledge it seems as though your running into > BEAM-4744, is there a reason you need to specify -Ppublishing? > >>> > >>> No particular reason to using ByteString within ByteKey and > TextSource. Note that we currently do shade away protobuf in sdks/java/core > so we could either migrate to using a vendored version or re-implement the > functionality to not use ByteString. Note that sdks/java/core can now > dependend on the model/* classes and perform the Pipeline -> Proto > translation as this will be needed to support portability efforts so I > would prefer just migrating to use the vendored versions of the code. Filed > BEAM-4766. > >>> > >>> As for the IO module, I was referring to the upstream > bigtable/bigquery/... libraries vended by Google. If they trimmed their API > surface to not expose gRPC or protobuf, then we wouldn't have to worry > about having the shading logic within sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform. I > know that this will be impossible for some connectors without backwards > incompatible changes since they exposed protobuf on their API surface. I > know that Chamikara was looking to shade this away in the > sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform but only had limited success in the past. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:14 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> This is great news in particular for runners (Spark) where the > leaking of some grpc subdependencies caused stability issues and required > extra shading. Great ! > >>>> > >>>> About the other modules > >>>> > >>>> > Note, these are the following modules that still depend on protobuf > that are shaded away and could move to use a vendored variant of protobuf: > >>>> > * sdks/java/core > >>>> > * sdks/java/extensions/sql > >>>> > >>>> For sdks/java/core the dependency in protobuf seems to be minor, from > a quick look it seems that it is only used to import ByteString in two > classes: ByteKey and TextSource so hopefully we can rewrite both and get > rid of the dependency altogether (making core smaller which is always a > win). > >>>> Can we fill a JIRA for this or do I miss other reasons to depend on > protobuf in core? > >>>> > >>>> For sdks/java/extensions/sql I don’t know if I am missing something, > but I don’t see any code use of protobuf and I doubt that calcite uses > protobuf so maybe it is there just because it was leaking from somewhere > else in Beam, we should better check this first. > >>>> > >>>> > These modules expose protobuf because it is part of the API surface: > >>>> > * sdks/java/extensions/protobuf > >>>> > * sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform (I believe that gRPC could be > shaded here but preferrably the IO module would do it so we wouldn't have > this maintenance burden.) > >>>> > >>>> Can you please elaborate on ‘but preferrably the IO module would do > it so we wouldn't have this maintenance burden’. I remember there was an > issue when running the examples in the spark runner examples because of > sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform leaking netty via gRPC (BEAM-3519) [Note > that this is hidden at this moment because of pure luck Spark 2.3.x and > Beam are aligned on netty version but this can change in the future so > hopefully this can be shaded/controlled]. > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:55 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> This is really cool and should cut down our artifact size > significantly! Thanks Luke! > >>>>> > >>>>> I am running into one issue after this: builds with the publishing > flag no longer work. (We run './gradlew -Ppublishing shadowJar' to generate > release artifacts for the Beam SQL shell.) I get a bunch of errors like > this: > >>>>> > >>>>> > model/job-management/build/generated/source/proto/main/java/org/apache/beam/model/jobmanagement/v1/JobApi.java:148: > error: no suitable method found for > readMessage(org.apache.beam.vendor.protobuf.v3.com.google.protobuf.Parser<Pipeline>,ExtensionRegistryLite) > >>>>> > >>>>> Is there something I need to change in my build? > >>>>> > >>>>> Andrew > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:10 PM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> With the merge of PR #5594[1], we started shading all gRPC / > Protobuf dependencies within all the modules that depended on the model/* > dependencies by vendoring them. The vendored versions are built and > packaged into the model jars (they should be separated out once I figure > out how to generate proto code using a shaded import path). Note that this > cleaned up several issues where we were incorrectly built shaded jars > without repackaging in some locations or the shading process was corrupting > the contents of some of the jars. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Note that the majority of the code base (especially related to > portability) should be using imports under the > org.apache.beam.vendor.protobuf.v3 or org.apache.beam.vendor.grpc.v1 paths. > I have yet to figure out a clean way to get Intellij to recognize these > vendored paths. My only solution so far has been to manually add one of the > built model jars to the compile classpath of the module being worked on in > Intellij as described here[2]. I would greatly appreciate some ideas on how > to improve this integration because from a few attempts configuring the > intellij gradle pluglin scope sections didn't produce the result that I was > expecting. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I also added a simple test task > validateShadedJarDoesntLeakNonOrgApacheBeamClasses that validates the > shaded jar doesn't contain classes without repackaging which we should > apply to any module that performs shading to ensure that classes are > relocated and we don't accidentally expose stuff. I filed BEAM-4753[3] to > this end. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Note, these are the following modules that still depend on protobuf > that are shaded away and could move to use a vendored variant of protobuf: > >>>>>> * sdks/java/core > >>>>>> * sdks/java/extensions/sql > >>>>>> > >>>>>> These modules expose protobuf because it is part of the API surface: > >>>>>> * sdks/java/extensions/protobuf > >>>>>> * sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform (I believe that gRPC could be > shaded here but preferrably the IO module would do it so we wouldn't have > this maintenance burden.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5594 > >>>>>> 2: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1051640/correct-way-to-add-external-jars-lib-jar-to-an-intellij-idea-project > >>>>>> 3: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4753 >
