Skip to content

New shading #26

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

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jul 5, 2017
Merged

New shading #26

merged 11 commits into from
Jul 5, 2017

Conversation

gpolaert
Copy link
Contributor

This PR fixes some conflict issues with the agent.
The core library was already shadded, here we are doing the same thing with the agent.

Even if the agent is not in the CP, whem it's loaded, its classes and dependencies are added to the CP.

@gpolaert
Copy link
Contributor Author

I tried to fix some conflict and cleaning POM. Let me know what do you think?



<properties>
<maven.deploy.skip>true</maven.deploy.skip>
<dd-trace.version>0.1.2-SNAPSHOT</dd-trace.version>
<!--Skip tests-->
<skipTests>true</skipTests>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

much nicer. 👍

@gpolaert
Copy link
Contributor Author

gpolaert commented Jul 3, 2017

@tylerbenson
Today, I added this dep, ad2ac98

I think we have to merge #26 then, #27 and removing all maven stuff in the same "loop".
I can do it, just let me know.

@gpolaert gpolaert mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2017
@tylerbenson
Copy link
Contributor

I'm ok if we decide to update the gradle deps as we go, or we decide to just update it all later. I still want the question about dd vs shaded resolved from this PR.

@tylerbenson tylerbenson force-pushed the gpolaert/new-shading branch from ad2ac98 to a150548 Compare July 3, 2017 17:36
@tylerbenson
Copy link
Contributor

@gpolaert FYI, I just forced pushed to this branch after rebasing, so if you don't have any local changes, it might be easiest to delete your local branch and re-checkout. If you do have local changes, I suggest stashing them and reapplying on the new branch.

(I'm trying to make sure the new maven repo configs are everywhere so we're not pushing new snapshots of the bad artifacts)

@gpolaert gpolaert changed the title Gpolaert/new shading New shading Jul 4, 2017
@@ -119,28 +120,21 @@
<relocations>
<relocation>
<pattern>com.fasterxml</pattern>
<shadedPattern>dd.com.fasterxml</shadedPattern>
<shadedPattern>shaded.com.fasterxml</shadedPattern>
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@tylerbenson I changed dd to shaded because I think I more explicit. There is no reason otherwise.

@gpolaert
Copy link
Contributor Author

gpolaert commented Jul 4, 2017

@tylerbenson I've updated gradle files to sync maven and gradle.
At the point, I think we can merge. Are you okay>

Copy link
Contributor

@tylerbenson tylerbenson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok I'll approve. I think something org specific would be preferable as the shaded package name (ex dd.deps or dd.shaded) since it's very likely that we'll see other people using the generic form as can be demonstrated by searching github.

<excludes>
<!-- If not, the shade plugin doesn't work -->
<exclude>io.opentracing.contrib:opentracing-agent</exclude>
<exclude>org.jboss.byteman:byteman</exclude>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Interesting... so these artifacts were breaking for me too for gradle's shadow jar. I don't think it's safe to just exclude them like this though.

@@ -119,28 +120,21 @@
<relocations>
<relocation>
<pattern>com.fasterxml</pattern>
<shadedPattern>dd.com.fasterxml</shadedPattern>
<shadedPattern>shaded.com.fasterxml</shadedPattern>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure why this changed. I think it would be much better to use a custom prefix, not shaded, otherwise we'll have the same conflict problem with anyone else using the default.

This was referenced Apr 19, 2025
@pr-commenter pr-commenter bot mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2025
1 task
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.

2 participants