Consumer proguard rules, javadoc artifact #143
Conversation
easypermissions/proguard-rules.pro
Outdated
| #} | ||
| -keepclassmembers class * { | ||
| @pub.devrel.easypermissions.AfterPermissionGranted <methods>; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: add a new line at the bottom of the file
| repositories { | ||
| jcenter() | ||
| google() | ||
| maven { url 'https://maven.google.com' } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@samtstern Any reason we added the more verbose version of the repo instead of keeping google()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because when I use google() my build fails and I didn't feel like figuring out why :-)
| buildTypes { | ||
| release { | ||
| minifyEnabled false | ||
| minifyEnabled true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should deliver a proguarded version of the library. It personal drives me insane if I can't Ctrl + B a method and get the uncompiled/unobfuscated raw source code.
We have minifyEnabled false in FirebaseUI with a consumerProguardFile so the dev can decide to obfuscate their app if they want, but still develop it with the library source code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the app, not the library.
| classifier = 'sources' | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| task javadoc(type: Javadoc) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need to add failOnError = false for the build to work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep! Gonna see if I can actually fix the errors first and then add this.
Change-Id: Ib93ab20fe96ff86e53c0ee931b4b8736f44121e2
Change-Id: I6e02227733b693697dd9397f52f3dae2453239ad
Fix #137
Fix #123