Skip to content

[BEAM-134] Example of AutoValue integration #109

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
swegner wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

[BEAM-134] Example of AutoValue integration #109

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
779a392
Refactor IsmFormat value classes to use AutoValue
swegner Mar 31, 2016
069266a
Fix checkstyle errors
swegner Mar 31, 2016
649b006
fixup: cleanup based on review feedback
swegner Apr 13, 2016
387ba13
Exclude generated AutoValue source from code coverage tooling
swegner Apr 20, 2016
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions pom.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -276,6 +276,11 @@
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
<configuration>
<excludes>
<exclude>**/AutoValue_*.java</exclude>
</excludes>
</configuration>
</plugin>

<!-- Report jacoco coverage to coveralls.io -->
Expand Down
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions sdks/java/core/pom.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -722,6 +722,12 @@
<version>1.0-rc2</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.auto.value</groupId>
<artifactId>auto-value</artifactId>
<version>1.1</version>
<scope>provided</scope>
Copy link
Member

@lukecwik lukecwik Apr 13, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why provided vs optional for auto-service?

Copy link
Member

@kennknowles kennknowles Apr 13, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 it should be compile-time only, aka <scope>compile</scope><optional>true</optional>

Copy link
Contributor Author

@swegner swegner Apr 13, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

provided is better than compile here, as the dependency is not propagated transitively (reference). optional is then no necessary since it deals with transitive dependencies.

Also, this is the recommended pom.xml definition from AutoValue.

Copy link
Member

@lukecwik lukecwik Apr 13, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

SGTM

</dependency>

<!-- test dependencies -->
<dependency>
Expand Down
Loading