> On 17 Aug 2022, at 22:52, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > > Seems like there has been a lot of progress on > https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/issues/1301 > <https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/issues/1301>. Since it has been > identified, I think we can be pretty confident that the version downgrade is > the necessary part. So we can revert the PR for the release, then on main > branch we can proceed with unvendoring but keeping the same version.
+1 for this. > BTW just noting for the thread that I also checked mvn dependency:tree of > Talend/beam-samples and confirmed that only Beam depends on bytebuddy so it > is not a dependency conflict. Sorry, I forgot to mention that I'd checked this before I posted that issue on dev@ (to make sure that it depends only on one version of byte_buddy). Thanks for highlighting this. > I also googled the error message and found > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51650074/apache-beam-invisible-parameter-type-exception > > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51650074/apache-beam-invisible-parameter-type-exception> > and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5061 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5061> where using JDK 10 instead > of 8 causes a similar symptom but it does not seem related. It was never > directly addressed. For me, it looks not very related since it’s about pretty old version of byte_buddy and in “beam-samples” we test a build with OpenJDK v8, v11, and even v17 and it fails in the same way for all of them. — Alexey > > Kenn > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:36 AM Kiley Sok <kiley...@google.com > <mailto:kiley...@google.com>> wrote: > PR to revert the change for the release > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/22759 > <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/22759> > > I'll rebuild a new RC once the tests pass and the PR is merged. > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 8:16 AM Liam Miller-Cushon <cus...@google.com > <mailto:cus...@google.com>> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:42 PM Kiley Sok <kiley...@google.com > <mailto:kiley...@google.com>> wrote: > Liam, are we okay to roll back this change for this release? > > No concerns from me with rolling back to unblock the release. > > It looks like this is a change between bytebuddy 1.12.3 and 1.12.4. I filed > https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/issues/1301 > <https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/issues/1301> to get help understanding > what changed, it sounds like the change might be WAI but there's a suggested > fix. I will prepare a PR for that as a follow-up.
