Yes, I am able to run it. For tests, you also need to add dependencies to ":beam-runners-java-fn-execution/beam-runners-java-fn-execution_*test*" module.
Also, I only added :beam-model-job-management-2.6.0-SNAPSHOT.jar :beam-model-fn-execution-2.6.0-SNAPSHOT.jar to the dependencies manually so not sure if you want to add io.grpc:grpc-core:1.12.0 and com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java:3.5.1 to the dependencies. Note, you need to move them up in the dependencies list. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 5:54 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>
