-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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
No error prone warnings reported on Bazel@HEAD #6077
Comments
Internally javac is logging a large number of warnings because the class file version in the bootclasspath jar exceeds the highest version supported by the compiler, which we're filtering out in JavaBuilder:
I believe those warnings are harmless: the javac has an internal limit to the number of errors and warnings it's willing to log. By default it's 100, and it can be configured using the Setting
|
@lberki the TL;DR is that 12dcd35 causes javac compilation warnings to sometimes get dropped from build output, especially for large compilations. I see a few options:
|
@davido , we are currently trying to figure out in what state to ship Bazel 0.17 . My initial reaction was that let's roll back the javac upgrade so that we have one less change to worry about, but then this bug happened and @cushon informed me about some things that could go wrong with that plan. I'm currently taking stock of the situation. |
@lberki Thanks for clarifying. I have no doubt that you and @cushon will figure out what is the right course of action here. My feeling is though, that it's probably not the best choise to mix JDK 10 Just to let you know, that I've tested Bazel@HEAD before the rollback in 12dcd35, and wasn't able to find any issue. We've even tried experimental JDK11 support with vanilla toolchain and all worked as expected. |
Update: we decided to take a mulligan and retry the JDK/javac version bump in Bazel 0.18 after we add testing: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bazel-sig-jvm/mGRr-asogn0 Sorry about the mess again :( |
It's not ideal, but we have validated that configuration fairly extensively against our code and I have relatively high confidence in it. This issue in this bug is kind of a blind spot in that validation, since we don't surface warnings in the build log (Error Prone warnings are integrated into code review instead). |
This should have been fixed by 7eb9ea1; the |
Building with all Error Prone warnings activated on Bazel@HEAD (8f0d73a) producing almost no warnings. This change seems to be related: 12dcd35. When reverted, I see dozen of warnings: [1].
Reproducer: clone Gerrit and run:
[1] http://paste.openstack.org/show/729447
//CC @cushon
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: