Support compile and runtime scopes for a library in the output pom

[daviddawson]

Currently shadow jar will put all non shaded dependencies into the runtime scope, even if they were originally, logically at least, in the "compile" scope

This is done here -> https://github.com/johnrengelman/shadow/blob/master/src/main/groovy/com/github/jengelman/gradle/plugins/shadow/ShadowJavaPlugin.groovy#L78

This causes problems in libraries that require their dependencies in the compile scope (ie, they use a transitive dependency class in their public api).

It would be good to be able have a shadowCompile option in the dependencies block that means the jar is put into the compile scope in the pom rather than runtime.

Shadow Version

2.0.1

[HappyEmu]

+1 👍

[grthr]

As a workaround you could just replace the publishing configuration in build.gradle with:

publishing.publications {
  shadow(MavenPublication) { publication ->
    publication.artifact(project.tasks.shadowJar)
    publication.pom { pom ->
      pom.withXml { xml ->
        def dependenciesNode = xml.asNode().appendNode('dependencies')
        project.configurations.shadow.allDependencies.each {
          if (! (it instanceof SelfResolvingDependency)) {
            def dependencyNode = dependenciesNode.appendNode('dependency')
            dependencyNode.appendNode('groupId', it.group)
            dependencyNode.appendNode('artifactId', it.name)
            dependencyNode.appendNode('version', it.version)
            dependencyNode.appendNode('scope', 'compile')
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

[mkobit]

👍 to this - I'm using this plugin to relocate all of the runtime-style dependencies while keeping the api type dependencies in the POM as "compile" scope. I'm trying to get this to work well with the java-library plugin. It can be done, but it does take a bit of a hacky approach like above.

[Evanjt1]

👍 as well, similar use case as @mkobit . Would be nice to have better support for java-library plugin in future. May add support for this when I have some free time.

[eli-darkly]

@johnrengelman Could you comment on whether this is still an active issue that will be addressed in a future version, or is there a different solution for it now? We publish libraries using Shadow and our customers have complained about exactly this problem.

[Goooler]

I noted the pom.withXml stuff in #1546.

From historical compatibility, I believe we can't change the behavior of configurations of shadow, implementation, and api. I commented on the related reason to #722 (comment).