Are you able to run org.apache.beam.runners.fnexecution.control.RemoteExecutionTest from within Intellij ?
I can get the compile errors to disappear by adding beam-model-job-management-2.6.0-SNAPSHOT.jar, io.grpc:grpc-core:1.12.0 and com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java:3.5.1 Running the test still fails since other dependencies are missing. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM Ankur Goenka <goe...@google.com> wrote: > For reference: > I was able to make intellij work with the master by doing following steps > > 1. Remove module :beam:vendor-sdks-java-extensions-protobuf from > intellij. > 2. Adding > > :beam-model-fn-execution/build/libs/beam-model-fn-execution-2.6.0-SNAPSHOT.jar > and > :beam-model-job-management/build/libs/beam-model-job-management-2.6.0-SNAPSHOT.jar > to the appropriate modules at the top of the dependency list. > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:29 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Adding the external jar in Intellij (2018.1) currently fails due to a >> duplicate source directory (sdks/java/extensions/protobuf/src/main/java). >> >> The build as such also fails, with: error: warnings found and -Werror >> specified >> >> Ismaël found removing >> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/buildSrc/src/main/groovy/org/apache/beam/gradle/BeamModulePlugin.groovy#L538 >> as workaround. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:55 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Seems reasonable, but why exactly may we need the model (or protobuf >>> related things) in the future in the SDK ? wasn’t it supposed to be >>> translated into the Pipeline proto representation via the runners (and >>> in this case the dep reside in the runner side) ? >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:50 AM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Got a fix[1] for Andrews issue which turned out to be a release >>> blocker since it broke performing the release. Also fixed several minor >>> things like javadoc that were wrong with the release. Solving it allowed me >>> to do the publishing in parallel and cut the release time from 20+ mins to >>> 8 mins on my machine. >>> > >>> > 1: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5936 >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:51 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> We discussed this in person, sounds like my issue is known and will >>> be fixed shortly. I'm running builds with '-Ppublishing' because I need to >>> generate release artifacts for bundling the Beam SQL shell with the Google >>> Cloud SDK. Hope to eventually just use the Beam release, but we are >>> currently cutting a release off master every week to quickly iterate on bug >>> fixes. >>> >> >>> >> Andrew >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:39 PM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew, to my knowledge it seems as though your running into >>> BEAM-4744, is there a reason you need to specify -Ppublishing? >>> >>> >>> >>> No particular reason to using ByteString within ByteKey and >>> TextSource. Note that we currently do shade away protobuf in sdks/java/core >>> so we could either migrate to using a vendored version or re-implement the >>> functionality to not use ByteString. Note that sdks/java/core can now >>> dependend on the model/* classes and perform the Pipeline -> Proto >>> translation as this will be needed to support portability efforts so I >>> would prefer just migrating to use the vendored versions of the code. Filed >>> BEAM-4766. >>> >>> >>> >>> As for the IO module, I was referring to the upstream >>> bigtable/bigquery/... libraries vended by Google. If they trimmed their API >>> surface to not expose gRPC or protobuf, then we wouldn't have to worry >>> about having the shading logic within sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform. I >>> know that this will be impossible for some connectors without backwards >>> incompatible changes since they exposed protobuf on their API surface. I >>> know that Chamikara was looking to shade this away in the >>> sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform but only had limited success in the past. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:14 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> This is great news in particular for runners (Spark) where the >>> leaking of some grpc subdependencies caused stability issues and required >>> extra shading. Great ! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> About the other modules >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > Note, these are the following modules that still depend on >>> protobuf that are shaded away and could move to use a vendored variant of >>> protobuf: >>> >>>> > * sdks/java/core >>> >>>> > * sdks/java/extensions/sql >>> >>>> >>> >>>> For sdks/java/core the dependency in protobuf seems to be minor, >>> from a quick look it seems that it is only used to import ByteString in two >>> classes: ByteKey and TextSource so hopefully we can rewrite both and get >>> rid of the dependency altogether (making core smaller which is always a >>> win). >>> >>>> Can we fill a JIRA for this or do I miss other reasons to depend on >>> protobuf in core? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> For sdks/java/extensions/sql I don’t know if I am missing >>> something, but I don’t see any code use of protobuf and I doubt that >>> calcite uses protobuf so maybe it is there just because it was leaking from >>> somewhere else in Beam, we should better check this first. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > These modules expose protobuf because it is part of the API >>> surface: >>> >>>> > * sdks/java/extensions/protobuf >>> >>>> > * sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform (I believe that gRPC could >>> be shaded here but preferrably the IO module would do it so we wouldn't >>> have this maintenance burden.) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Can you please elaborate on ‘but preferrably the IO module would do >>> it so we wouldn't have this maintenance burden’. I remember there was an >>> issue when running the examples in the spark runner examples because of >>> sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform leaking netty via gRPC (BEAM-3519) [Note >>> that this is hidden at this moment because of pure luck Spark 2.3.x and >>> Beam are aligned on netty version but this can change in the future so >>> hopefully this can be shaded/controlled]. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:55 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> This is really cool and should cut down our artifact size >>> significantly! Thanks Luke! >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I am running into one issue after this: builds with the publishing >>> flag no longer work. (We run './gradlew -Ppublishing shadowJar' to generate >>> release artifacts for the Beam SQL shell.) I get a bunch of errors like >>> this: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> model/job-management/build/generated/source/proto/main/java/org/apache/beam/model/jobmanagement/v1/JobApi.java:148: >>> error: no suitable method found for >>> readMessage(org.apache.beam.vendor.protobuf.v3.com.google.protobuf.Parser<Pipeline>,ExtensionRegistryLite) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Is there something I need to change in my build? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Andrew >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:10 PM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> With the merge of PR #5594[1], we started shading all gRPC / >>> Protobuf dependencies within all the modules that depended on the model/* >>> dependencies by vendoring them. The vendored versions are built and >>> packaged into the model jars (they should be separated out once I figure >>> out how to generate proto code using a shaded import path). Note that this >>> cleaned up several issues where we were incorrectly built shaded jars >>> without repackaging in some locations or the shading process was corrupting >>> the contents of some of the jars. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Note that the majority of the code base (especially related to >>> portability) should be using imports under the >>> org.apache.beam.vendor.protobuf.v3 or org.apache.beam.vendor.grpc.v1 paths. >>> I have yet to figure out a clean way to get Intellij to recognize these >>> vendored paths. My only solution so far has been to manually add one of the >>> built model jars to the compile classpath of the module being worked on in >>> Intellij as described here[2]. I would greatly appreciate some ideas on how >>> to improve this integration because from a few attempts configuring the >>> intellij gradle pluglin scope sections didn't produce the result that I was >>> expecting. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I also added a simple test task >>> validateShadedJarDoesntLeakNonOrgApacheBeamClasses that validates the >>> shaded jar doesn't contain classes without repackaging which we should >>> apply to any module that performs shading to ensure that classes are >>> relocated and we don't accidentally expose stuff. I filed BEAM-4753[3] to >>> this end. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Note, these are the following modules that still depend on >>> protobuf that are shaded away and could move to use a vendored variant of >>> protobuf: >>> >>>>>> * sdks/java/core >>> >>>>>> * sdks/java/extensions/sql >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> These modules expose protobuf because it is part of the API >>> surface: >>> >>>>>> * sdks/java/extensions/protobuf >>> >>>>>> * sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform (I believe that gRPC could >>> be shaded here but preferrably the IO module would do it so we wouldn't >>> have this maintenance burden.) >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 1: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5594 >>> >>>>>> 2: >>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1051640/correct-way-to-add-external-jars-lib-jar-to-an-intellij-idea-project >>> >>>>>> 3: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4753 >>> >>
