[Backport 2.8] Remove dependency on javax.annotation implementation as OpenSearch now has one. #2804
Conversation
![opensearch-trigger-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/80134844?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
…w has one. (#2801) This resolves "JAR hell" issues when installing the plugin. Signed-off-by: Thomas Farr <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 9be79bd)
opensearch-trigger-bot
bot
requested review from
cliu123,
cwperks,
DarshitChanpura,
davidlago,
peternied,
RyanL1997 and
stephen-crawford
as code owners
|
FYI, the change in core was not backported to 2.8, only to |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 2.8 #2804 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 61.26% 61.33% +0.07%
- Complexity 3316 3321 +5
============================================
Files 264 264
Lines 18507 18507
Branches 3265 3265
============================================
+ Hits 11338 11351 +13
+ Misses 5593 5579 -14
- Partials 1576 1577 +1 |
|
Closing this PR. The change isn't necessary on the 2.8 branch. |
|
@DarshitChanpura Is there an issue with the Github check? The original PR that introduced the dependency in core is not in core's 2.8 branch: opensearch-project/OpenSearch#7604 |
|
@DarshitChanpura I think the plugin install is failing on the PR you linked to because this artifact (https://artifacts.opensearch.org/snapshots/core/opensearch/2.8.0-SNAPSHOT/opensearch-min-2.8.0-SNAPSHOT-linux-x64-latest.tar.gz) is stale. That artifact may have been built off of 2.x after this change was merged: opensearch-project/OpenSearch#7779 I don't think that artifact is created from the 2.8 branch yet. |
Hmm, you are right. Since 2.x hasn't been bumped to 2.9, CI for this branch and 2.x use the same 2.8 artifact. However, I still think we should have this change here, since it applies to all 2.8 artifacts. |
|
Wouldn't that lead to compile or runtime failures if the jar isn't present? If the dependency is not coming from core then our build.gradle file needs the direct dependency if the security plugin requires it for compilation or runtime. |
I see. My understanding was that the change in core was backported to 2.8, but it isn't. So yes we can close this PR. |
Backport 9be79bd from #2801