Go back to using Java 11 to generate snapshot Javadoc. #7109
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![copybara-service[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/44061?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
(i.e., roll back a small portion of cl/615151162) It turns out that Javadoc snapshots [fail when using Java 21](#6790 (comment)). RELNOTES=n/a PiperOrigin-RevId: 615532809
copybara-service
bot
force-pushed
the
test_615518606
branch
from
967268c
to
b6d8d91
Compare
copybara-service
bot
closed this pull request by merging all changes
into
master
in
b6d8d91
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
In particular: - Use JDK 22 for compilation to [avoid a JDK 11 bug](#7331). - Another way to avoid that bug would be to use JDK 8, which [would also provide a `--release`-like compatibility guarantee](#3990). However, that could complicate [using newer APIs conditionally](#6549). And of course we'd expect JDK 8 to be buggier than JDK 22. (In fact, we still have a workaround or two for JDK 8 bugs (with a brand new one coming in cl/655556207), and we could now remove those—assuming that none of our users use JDK 8 to build Guava outside of our Maven build.) JDK 22 also supports new versions of Error Prone, while JDK 8 does not. - This change also allows us to simplify our Error Prone configuration, which until now needed different profiles in order to support both JDK 8 and JDK 9+. We could now upgrade Error Prone, but I haven't done so yet. - Continue to use JDK 11 for Javadoc, as [we're doing now](https://github.com/google/guava/blob/5041fbe61965a73ea269c7c24ea746d89bd1b1ba/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L89-L99) because of [problems with at least JDK 21](#7109). - What matters might actually be the version used [by _JDiff_](#6549 (comment)), which comes from the version in the linked `ci.yml` file. But since we're using JDK 11 currently for docs in general, I'm sticking with that for now. Still, we should consider [upgrading the version used for Javadoc generation](#6790 (comment)). But this CL is already complicated enough.... - When we hard-code JDK 11, we need to remove the `<source>${java.specification.version}</source>` line: That would otherwise set (for example) `-source 17` when running Maven under JDK 17, and JDK 11 wouldn't recognize it. As I recall, the `java.specification.version` usage was from the days in which we tried to inherit Javadoc from the JDK. Inheritance had [stopped working](#6790), and we ripped it out in cl/614693592. (See also [these notes](#5457 (comment)).) Fixes #7331 RELNOTES=n/a PiperOrigin-RevId: 655592201
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
In particular: - Use JDK 22 for compilation to [avoid a JDK 11 bug](#7331). - Another way to avoid that bug would be to use JDK 8, which [would also provide a `--release`-like compatibility guarantee](#3990). However, that could complicate [using newer APIs conditionally](#6549). And of course we'd expect JDK 8 to be buggier than JDK 22. (In fact, we still have a workaround or two for JDK 8 bugs (with a brand new one coming in cl/655556207), and we could now remove those—assuming that none of our users use JDK 8 to build Guava outside of our Maven build.) JDK 22 also supports new versions of Error Prone, while JDK 8 does not. - This change also allows us to simplify our Error Prone configuration, which until now needed different profiles in order to support both JDK 8 and JDK 9+. We could now upgrade Error Prone, but I haven't done so yet. - Continue to use JDK 11 for Javadoc, as [we're doing now](https://github.com/google/guava/blob/5041fbe61965a73ea269c7c24ea746d89bd1b1ba/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L89-L99) because of [problems with at least JDK 21](#7109). - What matters might actually be the version used [by _JDiff_](#6549 (comment)), which comes from the version in the linked `ci.yml` file. But since we're using JDK 11 currently for docs in general, I'm sticking with that for now. Still, we should consider [upgrading the version used for Javadoc generation](#6790 (comment)). But this CL is already complicated enough.... - When we hard-code JDK 11, we need to remove the `<source>${java.specification.version}</source>` line: That would otherwise set (for example) `-source 17` when running Maven under JDK 17, and JDK 11 wouldn't recognize it. As I recall, the `java.specification.version` usage was from the days in which we tried to inherit Javadoc from the JDK. Inheritance had [stopped working](#6790), and we ripped it out in cl/614693592. I assume that we'll now get the default from the JDK whose Javadoc binary we're using, which (again) will now be 11. That seems fine. We could consider setting it to 8 to match our normal build (which I thought I had remembered was the `maven-javadoc-plugin` default, but I don't think I'm seeing that, at least not under our current versions), but I don't see much downside to 11—or even to newer versions that we might someday use for Maven Javadoc generation, given that we keep the code compiling under new versions already. Some other thing I'm wondering: - I wonder if we should activate(?) some of the plugins, including the new toolchain plugins, in the `<plugins>` (not just `<pluginManagement>`) section of the parent `pom.xml`. Might that save us from having to do so in each separate `pom.xml`? (We might actually mostly get away with activating(?) them only in the main `guava` build: That _downloads and registers_ the toolchains, and then at least the other projects' _per-plugin_ toolchain configuration probably finds them? But for the more general configuration to work, I think we at least need to activate(?) `maven-toolchains-plugin` in each? I haven't experimented a ton with this.) (See also [these notes](#5457 (comment)).) So Fixes #7331 RELNOTES=n/a PiperOrigin-RevId: 655592201
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
In particular: - Use JDK 22 for compilation to [avoid a JDK 11 bug](#7331). - Another way to avoid that bug would be to use JDK 8, which [would also provide a `--release`-like compatibility guarantee](#3990). However, that could complicate [using newer APIs conditionally](#6549). And of course we'd expect JDK 8 to be buggier than JDK 22. (In fact, we still have a workaround or two for JDK 8 bugs (with a brand new one coming in cl/655556207), and we could now remove those—assuming that none of our users use JDK 8 to build Guava outside of our Maven build.) JDK 22 also supports new versions of Error Prone, while JDK 8 does not. - This change also allows us to simplify our Error Prone configuration, which until now needed different profiles in order to support both JDK 8 and JDK 9+. We could now upgrade Error Prone, but I haven't done so yet. - Continue to use JDK 11 for Javadoc, as [we're doing now](https://github.com/google/guava/blob/5041fbe61965a73ea269c7c24ea746d89bd1b1ba/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L89-L99) because of [problems with at least JDK 21](#7109). - What matters might actually be the version used [by _JDiff_](#6549 (comment)), which comes from the version in the linked `ci.yml` file. But since we're using JDK 11 currently for docs in general, I'm sticking with that for now. Still, we should consider [upgrading the version used for Javadoc generation](#6790 (comment)). But this CL is already complicated enough.... - When we hard-code JDK 11, we need to remove the `<source>${java.specification.version}</source>` line: That would otherwise set (for example) `-source 17` when running Maven under JDK 17, and JDK 11 wouldn't recognize it. As I recall, the `java.specification.version` usage was from the days in which we tried to inherit Javadoc from the JDK. Inheritance had [stopped working](#6790), and we ripped it out in cl/614693592. I assume that we'll now get the default from the JDK whose Javadoc binary we're using, which (again) will now be 11. That seems fine. We could consider setting it to 8 to match our normal build (which I thought I had remembered was the `maven-javadoc-plugin` default, but I don't think I'm seeing that, at least not under our current versions), but I don't see much downside to 11—or even to newer versions that we might someday use for Maven Javadoc generation, given that we keep the code compiling under new versions already. Some other thing I'm wondering: - I wonder if we should activate(?) some of the plugins, including the new toolchain plugins, in the `<plugins>` (not just `<pluginManagement>`) section of the parent `pom.xml`. Might that save us from having to do so in each separate `pom.xml`? (We might actually mostly get away with activating(?) them only in the main `guava` build: That _downloads and registers_ the toolchains, and then at least the other projects' _per-plugin_ toolchain configuration probably finds them? But for the more general configuration to work, I think we at least need to activate(?) `maven-toolchains-plugin` in each? I haven't experimented a ton with this.) (See also [these notes](#5457 (comment)).) So Fixes #7331 RELNOTES=n/a PiperOrigin-RevId: 655592201
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
In particular: - Use JDK 22 for compilation to [avoid a JDK 11 bug](#7331). - Another way to avoid that bug would be to use JDK 8, which [would also provide a `--release`-like compatibility guarantee](#3990). However, that could complicate [using newer APIs conditionally](#6549). And of course we'd expect JDK 8 to be buggier than JDK 22. (In fact, we still have a workaround or two for JDK 8 bugs (with a brand new one coming in cl/655556207), and we could now remove those—assuming that none of our users use JDK 8 to build Guava outside of our Maven build.) JDK 22 also supports new versions of Error Prone, while JDK 8 does not. - This change also allows us to simplify our Error Prone configuration, which until now needed different profiles in order to support both JDK 8 and JDK 9+. We could now upgrade Error Prone, but I haven't done so yet. - Continue to use JDK 11 for Javadoc, as [we're doing now](https://github.com/google/guava/blob/5041fbe61965a73ea269c7c24ea746d89bd1b1ba/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L89-L99) because of [problems with at least JDK 21](#7109). - What matters might actually be the version used [by _JDiff_](#6549 (comment)), which comes from the version in the linked `ci.yml` file. But since we're using JDK 11 currently for docs in general, I'm sticking with that for now. Still, we should consider [upgrading the version used for Javadoc generation](#6790 (comment)). But this CL is already complicated enough.... - When we hard-code JDK 11, we need to change the `<source>${java.specification.version}</source>` line: That would otherwise set (for example) `-source 17` when running Maven under JDK 17, and JDK 11 wouldn't recognize it. As I recall, the `java.specification.version` usage was from the days in which we tried to inherit Javadoc from the JDK. Inheritance had [stopped working](#6790), and we ripped it out in cl/614693592. I first tried going with the default from the JDK whose Javadoc binary we're using, which (again) will now be 11. But that led to a problem in `org.codehaus.plexus.languages.java.jpms.CmdModuleNameExtractor`, which apparently tries to look up the module name for the `-source 11` run but uses the Maven run's JDK instead of the Javadoc toolchain or Maven toolchain. So now I've set it to 8 to match what we use for `maven-compiler-plugin`. (I _thought_ I had remembered that `maven-javadoc-plugin` defaulted to matching `maven-compiler-plugin`, even though that's weird. Maybe the two actually just read from the same Maven property or something, or maybe the behavior changed.) Some other thing I'm wondering: - I wonder if we should activate(?) some of the plugins, including the new toolchain plugins, in the `<plugins>` (not just `<pluginManagement>`) section of the parent `pom.xml`. Might that save us from having to do so in each separate `pom.xml`? (We might actually mostly get away with activating(?) them only in the main `guava` build: That _downloads and registers_ the toolchains, and then at least the other projects' _per-plugin_ toolchain configuration probably finds them? But for the more general configuration to work, I think we at least need to activate(?) `maven-toolchains-plugin` in each? I haven't experimented a ton with this.) - I forgot the other thing while I was typing :( (See also [these notes](#5457 (comment)).) So Fixes #7331 RELNOTES=n/a PiperOrigin-RevId: 655592201
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
In particular: - Use JDK 22 for compilation (also, for any other [affected plugins](https://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-using-toolchains.html#prerequisites)) to [avoid a JDK 11 bug](#7331). - Another way to avoid that bug would be to use JDK 8, which [would also provide a `--release`-like compatibility guarantee](#3990). However, that could complicate [using newer APIs conditionally](#6549). And of course we'd expect JDK 8 to be buggier than JDK 22. (In fact, we still have a workaround or two for JDK 8 bugs (with a brand new one coming in cl/655556207), and we could now remove those—assuming that none of our users use JDK 8 to build Guava outside of our Maven build.) JDK 22 also supports new versions of Error Prone, while JDK 8 does not. - This change also allows us to simplify our Error Prone configuration, which until now needed different profiles in order to support both JDK 8 and JDK 9+. We could now upgrade Error Prone, but I haven't done so yet. There are probably other simplifications that we could perform, as well, such as `maven-javadoc-plugin.additionalJOptions`. - Originally, I'd set up this CL to explicitly set only the toolchain of `maven-compiler-plugin` to 22. I had it using 11 for any other plugins (just Animal Sniffer, maybe?), I think from when I was trying to get toolchains to take effect at all. I've since changed this CL to set the _default_ toolchain to 22 while still including overrides for `maven-javadoc-plugin` and `maven-surefire-plugin`. - Continue to use JDK 11 for Javadoc, as [we're doing now](https://github.com/google/guava/blob/5041fbe61965a73ea269c7c24ea746d89bd1b1ba/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L89-L99) because of [problems with at least JDK 21](#7109). - What matters might actually be the version used [by _JDiff_](#6549 (comment)), which comes from the version in the linked `ci.yml` file. But since we're using JDK 11 currently for docs in general, I'm sticking with that for now. Still, we should consider [upgrading the version used for Javadoc generation](#6790 (comment)). But this CL is already complicated enough.... - When we hard-code JDK 11, we need to change the `<source>${java.specification.version}</source>` line: That would otherwise set (for example) `-source 17` when running Maven under JDK 17, and JDK 11 wouldn't recognize it. As I recall, the `java.specification.version` usage was from the days in which we tried to inherit Javadoc from the JDK. Inheritance had [stopped working](#6790), and we ripped it out in cl/614693592. I first tried going with the default from the JDK whose Javadoc binary we're using, which (again) will now be 11. But that led to a problem in `org.codehaus.plexus.languages.java.jpms.CmdModuleNameExtractor`, which apparently tries to look up the module name for the `-source 11` run but uses the Maven run's JDK instead of the Javadoc toolchain or Maven toolchain. So now I've set it to 8 to match what we use for `maven-compiler-plugin`. (I _thought_ I had remembered that `maven-javadoc-plugin` defaulted to matching `maven-compiler-plugin`, even though that's weird. Maybe the two actually just read from the same Maven property or something, or maybe the behavior changed.) Some other thing I'm wondering: - I wonder if we should activate(?) some of the plugins, including the new toolchain plugins, in the `<plugins>` (not just `<pluginManagement>`) section of the parent `pom.xml`. Might that save us from having to do so in each separate `pom.xml`? (We might actually mostly get away with activating(?) them only in the main `guava` build: That _downloads and registers_ the toolchains, and then at least the other projects' _per-plugin_ toolchain configuration probably finds them? But for the more general configuration to work, I think we at least need to activate(?) `maven-toolchains-plugin` in each? I haven't experimented a ton with this.) - I forgot the other thing while I was typing :( (See also [these notes](#5457 (comment)).) Fixes #7331 RELNOTES=n/a PiperOrigin-RevId: 655592201
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
In particular: - Use JDK 22 for compilation (also, for any other [affected plugins](https://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-using-toolchains.html#prerequisites)) to [avoid a JDK 11 bug](#7331). - Another way to avoid that bug would be to use JDK 8, which [would also provide a `--release`-like compatibility guarantee](#3990). However, that could complicate [using newer APIs conditionally](#6549). And of course we'd expect JDK 8 to be buggier than JDK 22. (In fact, we still have a workaround or two for JDK 8 bugs (with a brand new one coming in cl/655556207), and we could now remove those—assuming that none of our users use JDK 8 to build Guava outside of our Maven build.) JDK 22 also supports new versions of Error Prone, while JDK 8 does not. - This change also allows us to simplify our Error Prone configuration, which until now needed different profiles in order to support both JDK 8 and JDK 9+. We could now upgrade Error Prone, but I haven't done so yet. There are probably other simplifications that we could perform, as well, such as `maven-javadoc-plugin.additionalJOptions`. - Originally, I'd set up this CL to explicitly set only the toolchain of `maven-compiler-plugin` to 22. I had it using 11 for any other plugins (just Animal Sniffer, maybe?), I think from when I was trying to get toolchains to take effect at all. I've since changed this CL to set the _default_ toolchain to 22 while still including overrides for `maven-javadoc-plugin` and `maven-surefire-plugin`. - Continue to use JDK 11 for Javadoc, as [we're doing now](https://github.com/google/guava/blob/5041fbe61965a73ea269c7c24ea746d89bd1b1ba/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L89-L99) because of [problems with at least JDK 21](#7109). - What matters might actually be the version used [by _JDiff_](#6549 (comment)), which comes from the version in the linked `ci.yml` file. But since we're using JDK 11 currently for docs in general, I'm sticking with that for now. Still, we should consider [upgrading the version used for Javadoc generation](#6790 (comment)). But this CL is already complicated enough.... - When we hard-code JDK 11, we need to change the `<source>${java.specification.version}</source>` line: That would otherwise set (for example) `-source 17` when running Maven under JDK 17, and JDK 11 wouldn't recognize it. As I recall, the `java.specification.version` usage was from the days in which we tried to inherit Javadoc from the JDK. Inheritance had [stopped working](#6790), and we ripped it out in cl/614693592. I first tried going with the default from the JDK whose Javadoc binary we're using, which (again) will now be 11. But that led to a problem in `org.codehaus.plexus.languages.java.jpms.CmdModuleNameExtractor`, which apparently tries to look up the module name for the `-source 11` run but uses the Maven run's JDK instead of the Javadoc toolchain or Maven toolchain. So now I've set it to 8 to match what we use for `maven-compiler-plugin`. (I _thought_ I had remembered that `maven-javadoc-plugin` defaulted to matching `maven-compiler-plugin`, even though that's weird. Maybe the two actually just read from the same Maven property or something, or maybe the behavior changed.) Some other thing I'm wondering: - I wonder if we should activate(?) some of the plugins, including the new toolchain plugins, in the `<plugins>` (not just `<pluginManagement>`) section of the parent `pom.xml`. Might that save us from having to do so in each separate `pom.xml`? (We might actually mostly get away with activating(?) them only in the main `guava` build: That _downloads and registers_ the toolchains, and then at least the other projects' _per-plugin_ toolchain configuration probably finds them? But for the more general configuration to work, I think we at least need to activate(?) `maven-toolchains-plugin` in each? I haven't experimented a ton with this.) - I forgot the other thing while I was typing :( (See also [these notes](#5457 (comment)).) Fixes #7331 RELNOTES=n/a PiperOrigin-RevId: 655647768
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Go back to using Java 11 to generate snapshot Javadoc.
(i.e., roll back a small portion of cl/615151162)
It turns out that Javadoc snapshots fail when using Java 21.
RELNOTES=n/a