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

update jib-core version to 0.22.0 and plugins versions to 3.3.0 #134

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 1, 2022

Conversation

mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Running into the following issue with 3.3.0:

Caused by: org.gradle.internal.resolve.ModuleVersionNotFoundException: Could not find gradle.plugin.com.google.cloud.tools:jib-gradle-plugin:3.3.0.
Searched in the following locations:
  - https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/gradle/plugin/com/google/cloud/tools/jib-gradle-plugin/3.3.0/jib-gradle-plugin-3.3.0.pom
  - https://plugins.gradle.org/m2/gradle/plugin/com/google/cloud/tools/jib-gradle-plugin/3.3.0/jib-gradle-plugin-3.3.0.pom

Have verified locally that this plugin works fine when 3.2.1 of jib-gradle-plugin is used. Will wait a bit and re-run this test.

@mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Additionally, running ./gradlew clean :jib-quarkus-extension-gradle:compileJava with 3.3.0 also results in the error seem above.

@emmileaf
Copy link
Contributor

Would it usually take a bit of time for the new releases to get updated in the Maven Repository?

@mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor Author

@chanseokoh
Copy link
Member

Removing gradle.plugin. works, but no idea why.

-    JIB_GRADLE: 'gradle.plugin.com.google.cloud.tools:jib-gradle-plugin:3.3.0',
+    JIB_GRADLE: 'com.google.cloud.tools:jib-gradle-plugin:3.3.0',

@mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor Author

oh good observation, thanks Chanseok! Will try with removing the gradle.plugin. Interesting that it worked fine in the past- I wonder what changed.

@elefeint
Copy link
Contributor

elefeint commented Sep 1, 2022

Gradle in core Jib got upgraded from 6.0.1 to 6.6.1 in GoogleContainerTools/jib#3670 . Could this have caused publishing to be done without the prefix?

@mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor Author

That does seem like a likely cause! Which also reminds me, maybe we should upgrade the gradle version here to be consistent with the main Jib repo?

@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Sep 1, 2022

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

@mpeddada1 mpeddada1 merged commit c53c75f into master Sep 1, 2022
@mpeddada1 mpeddada1 deleted the update-versions branch September 1, 2022 17:35
@elefeint
Copy link
Contributor

elefeint commented Sep 1, 2022

Yeah, it would make sense to have consistent gradle versions.
Sorry, I did not realize this would be a breaking change when accepting the gradle version upgrade. Will users have to change the way they configure jib?

@mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor Author

mpeddada1 commented Sep 1, 2022

Afaik it may not have a major impact on how jib is configured. Our README instructions specify jib to applied the following way: plugins { id 'com.google.cloud.tools.jib' version '3.3.0'} and our examples also follow the same pattern. Additionally, JIB_GRADLE is a compile-time dependency in jib-extensions and is only used to access certain jib-gradle classes in the extensions where it is applied.

@mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor Author

mpeddada1 commented Sep 1, 2022

Oh actually looking at @chanseokoh's comment, there may be a couple of cases: GoogleContainerTools/jib#3719 (comment). But the good news is that com.google.cloud.tools:jib-gradle-plugin works.

@chanseokoh
Copy link
Member

It will be pretty rare, as it mostly for those who want to use the jib-gradle-plugin JAR as a library (for whatever weird reasons) rather than using the Jib plugin in a Gradle build. It's not the use case we really support.

@elefeint
Copy link
Contributor

elefeint commented Sep 1, 2022

Sounds good; not breaking the documented usecases then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants