-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.5k
[flink] #30402 restore upgradability #30403
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ | |
| * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
| * limitations under the License. | ||
| */ | ||
| package org.apache.beam.sdk.util.construction; | ||
| package org.apache.beam.runners.core.construction; | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What about just re-introduce this to the flink runner? Yes the package doesn't match but at least it is isolated and not where anyone else might use it.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This was my initial line of thinking, but due to discussion on the ML it ended as generic class. It it actually true that the same problem might apply to other runners as well. |
||
|
|
||
| import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonProcessingException; | ||
| import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ObjectMapper; | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ | ||
| /* | ||
| * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one | ||
| * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file | ||
| * distributed with this work for additional information | ||
| * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file | ||
| * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the | ||
| * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance | ||
| * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at | ||
| * | ||
| * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
| * | ||
| * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software | ||
| * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, | ||
| * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. | ||
| * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
| * limitations under the License. | ||
| */ | ||
|
|
||
| /** Internal package related to runner construction. */ | ||
| @DefaultAnnotation(NonNull.class) | ||
| package org.apache.beam.runners.core.construction; | ||
|
|
||
| import edu.umd.cs.findbugs.annotations.DefaultAnnotation; | ||
| import org.checkerframework.checker.nullness.qual.NonNull; |
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.
@robertwb this is unfortunate. Do we have a check for API surface that this does not leak anywhere? In old construction-java and in sdk-core this is shaded. I can shade it, but runners-core is currently "plain", so that could be argument against placing it into the runners-core. I'm not familar enough wth the details of the build system to make a decision myself.
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.
Ugh...
@kennknowles would be in a better position to answer this.
We could re-introduce runners-core-construction with this as the sole class if needed if we can't place it in runners-core itself.
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
shadowconfiguration apparently means the opposite than I would expect. sdks-java-core already has jackson as a runtime dependecny, thus this only fixes checkstyle to not to complain on undeclared transitive dependency. Should be safe to merge.