docs: Clarify impact of java version used on README #1228
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
It at first confused the hell out of me why clearly the exact SAME version of google-java-format worked great locally but failed with errors (due to my use of record matching pattern syntax) on a GitHub Action - until I've noticed that it still ran under Java 17 - and that this matters to google-java-format (my naive initial assumption was that only the google-java-format version itself was relevant).
|
This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation. |
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2025
Manually created Google internal equivalent of public #1228, just in case it's easier to review here instead of there; quote with rationale for this, from public PR description: It at first confused the hell out of me why clearly the exact SAME version of google-java-format worked great locally but failed with errors (due to my use of record matching pattern syntax) on a GitHub Action - until I've noticed that it still ran under Java 17 - and that this matters to google-java-format (my naive initial assumption was that only the google-java-format version itself was relevant). PiperOrigin-RevId: 739857582
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2025
Manually created Google internal equivalent of public #1228, just in case it's easier to review here instead of there; quote with rationale for this, from public PR description: It at first confused the hell out of me why clearly the exact SAME version of google-java-format worked great locally but failed with errors (due to my use of record matching pattern syntax) on a GitHub Action - until I've noticed that it still ran under Java 17 - and that this matters to google-java-format (my naive initial assumption was that only the google-java-format version itself was relevant). PiperOrigin-RevId: 741076633
Member
Author
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
It at first confused the hell out of me why clearly the exact SAME version of google-java-format worked great locally but failed with errors (due to my use of record matching pattern syntax) on a GitHub Action - until I've noticed that it still ran under Java 17 - and that this matters to google-java-format (my naive initial assumption was that only the google-java-format version itself was relevant).