Skip to content
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

dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.23.0 #30860

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

vaukai
Copy link
Contributor

@vaukai vaukai commented May 3, 2023

No description provided.

@gentoo-bot gentoo-bot added assigned PR successfully assigned to the package maintainer(s). no bug found No Bug/Closes found in the commits. labels May 3, 2023
@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-03 16:58 UTC
Newest commit scanned: ed80b32
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/0df85f14ad/output.html

java.lang.RuntimeException: Tests data file /google/protobuf/testdata/golden_packed_fields_message is missing.
at com.google.protobuf.TestUtil.readBytesFromResource(TestUtil.java:3848)
at com.google.protobuf.TestUtil.getGoldenPackedFieldsMessage(TestUtil.java:3881)
at com.google.protobuf.CodedOutputStreamTest.testWriteWholePackedFieldsMessage(CodedOutputStreamTest.java:382)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

both these files should be part of a jar so that java can read them as resources. within the jar file the paths should be those as specified in the error. are they really missing from the distributed files or are they just missing in a jar?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@vaukai vaukai May 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done. Those files were in a different directory and adding that directory to JAVA_TEST_RESOURCE_DIRS didn't help. Having them in testdata.jar finally works

@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-04 08:48 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 07cd145
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/707c465bb5/output.html

@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-04 16:38 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 47ab56a
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/0ab4f92629/output.html

@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-04 18:53 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 24228e7
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/617198a553/output.html

@vaukai vaukai changed the title dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.22.3 dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.22.4 May 5, 2023
@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-05 09:53 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 4cb442c
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/98de09f840/output.html

@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-06 08:53 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 8438482
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/ff1c284d16/output.html

@vaukai vaukai changed the title dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.22.4 dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.23.0 May 8, 2023
@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-08 21:19 UTC
Newest commit scanned: e6265a1
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/145065e6e4/output.html

@vaukai
Copy link
Contributor Author

vaukai commented May 17, 2023

3.23.1 Protobuf only supports Abseil version 20230125.3 and newer.

@vaukai vaukai changed the title dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.23.0 dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.23.0 [please reassign] Jun 27, 2023
@gentoo-bot gentoo-bot changed the title dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.23.0 [please reassign] dev-java/protobuf-java: add 3.23.0 Jun 27, 2023
@gentoo-bot
Copy link

Pull Request assignment

Submitter: @vaukai
Areas affected: ebuilds, profiles
Packages affected: dev-java/protobuf-java

dev-java/protobuf-java: @Arfrever, @gentoo/cjk, @gentoo/java

Linked bugs

Bugs linked: 906811


In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append [please reassign] to the pull request title.

Docs: Code of ConductCopyright policy (expl.) ● DevmanualGitHub PRsProxy-maint guide

@gentoo-bot gentoo-bot added assigned PR successfully assigned to the package maintainer(s). bug linked Bug/Closes found in footer, and cross-linked with the PR. and removed assigned PR successfully assigned to the package maintainer(s). no bug found No Bug/Closes found in the commits. labels Jun 27, 2023
@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-06-27 16:41 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 8fdcede
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/14826b1d58/output.html

@fordfrog
Copy link
Contributor

it depends on dev-java/protobuf-23.0 which is not in the tree yet

@vaukai
Copy link
Contributor Author

vaukai commented Jun 28, 2023

it depends on dev-java/protobuf-23.0 which is not in the tree yet

That's the reason why we're building protoc locally if USE=-system-protoc.
The system-protoc USE flag gets masked in the second commit.

@fordfrog
Copy link
Contributor

fordfrog commented Jun 28, 2023

ah, well, the mask commit did not apply cleanly so i had to edit it but i might had done that wrongly...

Higher versions depend on dev-cpp/abseil-cpp-20230125.3 which is not in
the tree.

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/906811
Signed-off-by: Volkmar W. Pogatzki <gentoo@pogatzki.net>
Signed-off-by: Volkmar W. Pogatzki <gentoo@pogatzki.net>
@vaukai
Copy link
Contributor Author

vaukai commented Jun 28, 2023

ah, well, the mask commit did not apply cleanly so i had to edit it but i might had done that wrongly...

Sorry for inconvenience. I just rebased and solved the merge conflict.

@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-06-28 08:00 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 294dc4f
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/38f71434d5/output.html

@fordfrog
Copy link
Contributor

@vaukai thanks!

@vaukai vaukai deleted the protobuf-java branch June 28, 2023 08:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
assigned PR successfully assigned to the package maintainer(s). bug linked Bug/Closes found in footer, and cross-linked with the PR.
Projects
None yet
4 participants