Skip to content

Bring Java into parity for scenario-builds.yml #1423

Closed
Closed
Bring Java into parity for scenario-builds.yml#1423
Assignees
edburns
Labels
enhancement

Description

@edburns
edburns
opened on May 25, 2026

Consider this statement from Phase 05 of 80-java-monorepo-add-01-remove-before-merge/dd-2989727-move-java-to-monorepo-plan.md.

  1. Update scenario-builds.yml to include Java scenarios (if applicable).

Analysis

The scenario-builds.yml workflow verifies that example scenarios under scenarios compile for each SDK language. Java is completely absent — there are zero Java implementations in any scenario directory, and the workflow has no Java job or path triggers.

Current state of scenarios

Each scenario (e.g., gh-app) contains subdirectories per language (typescript/, python, go, csharp/, sometimes rust). Java has none.

What's needed

Two things:

  1. Create Java implementations inside select scenario directories (e.g., test/scenarios/auth/gh-app/java/, test/scenarios/tools/custom-agents/java/, etc.) — each with a pom.xml referencing the local SDK and a Main.java demonstrating the feature.

  2. Add a build-java job to scenario-builds.yml — sets up JDK 17, finds all test/scenarios/*/java/pom.xml files, and builds each one.

Proposed Plan

Phase A: Determine scope — Decide which scenarios get Java implementations. Candidates (matching what other core SDKs cover):

  • auth/gh-app
  • tools/custom-agents
  • callbacks/
  • sessions/
  • prompts/
  • modes/

Phase B: Create Java scenario implementations — For each selected scenario:

  1. Create test/scenarios/<name>/java/pom.xml with a dependency on the local Java SDK (../../../java/)
  2. Create test/scenarios/<name>/java/src/main/java/Main.java mirroring the logic from the TypeScript or C# version

Phase C: Update scenario-builds.yml — Add:

  1. java/** to the paths trigger
  2. A build-java job (JDK 17, Maven cache, iterate over scenario POMs and build each)

Phase D: Verify — Run the workflow locally or in CI to confirm all Java scenarios compile.

Activity

  1. edburns
    self-assigned this
    on May 25, 2026

  2. edburns commented on May 25, 2026

    @edburns
    edburns
    on May 25, 2026
    CollaboratorAuthor

    Look at the union of all the other language scenarios in scenario-builds.yml. Make a short table that lists the following aspects for each.

    Rows: scenario name, or id, or short description, whatever you find.

    Columns:

    • language
    • difficulty in t-shirt size
    • maturity in terms of number of commits to maintain that scenario
    • applicability to Java SDK on a scale of 1 - 5. 1 being: cannot possibly apply to Java, 5 being: is a perfect fit for the Java SDK.
    • desireablitiy: must have, nice to have, optional, undesireable

    Here's the consolidated assessment:

    # Scenario Languages Difficulty (Java) Maturity (commits) Applicability (1-5) Desirability
    AUTH 14
    1 auth/gh-app TS, Py, Go, C# M 14 5 Must have
    2 auth/byok-openai TS, Py, Go, C# S 14 5 Must have
    3 auth/byok-azure TS, Py, Go, C# S 14 5 Must have
    4 auth/byok-anthropic TS, Py, Go, C# S 14 5 Must have
    5 auth/byok-ollama TS, Py, Go, C# S 14 4 Nice to have
    BUNDLING 16
    6 bundling/fully-bundled TS, Py, Go, C# S 16 5 Must have
    7 bundling/app-direct-server TS, Py, Go, C# S 16 5 Must have
    8 bundling/app-backend-to-server TS, Py, Go, C# L 16 4 Nice to have
    9 bundling/container-proxy TS, Py, Go, C# XL 16 3 Optional
    CALLBACKS 21
    10 callbacks/hooks TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 21 5 Must have
    11 callbacks/permissions TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 21 5 Must have
    12 callbacks/user-input TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 21 5 Must have
    MODES 16
    13 modes/default TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 16 5 Must have
    14 modes/minimal TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 16 5 Must have
    PROMPTS 21
    15 prompts/system-message TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 21 5 Must have
    16 prompts/attachments TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 21 5 Must have
    17 prompts/reasoning-effort TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 21 5 Must have
    SESSIONS 19
    18 sessions/streaming TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 19 5 Must have
    19 sessions/infinite-sessions TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 19 5 Must have
    20 sessions/concurrent-sessions TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 19 5 Must have
    21 sessions/session-resume TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 19 5 Must have
    22 sessions/multi-user-long-lived TS, Py, Go L 19 4 Nice to have
    23 sessions/multi-user-short-lived TS, Py, Go L 19 2 Optional
    TOOLS 24
    24 tools/no-tools TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 24 5 Must have
    25 tools/custom-agents TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 24 5 Must have
    26 tools/tool-filtering TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 24 5 Must have
    27 tools/tool-overrides TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 24 5 Must have
    28 tools/mcp-servers TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 24 5 Must have
    29 tools/skills TS, Py, Go, C#, RS M 24 5 Must have
    30 tools/virtual-filesystem TS, Go L 24 2 Undesirable
    TRANSPORT 18
    31 transport/stdio TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 18 5 Must have
    32 transport/tcp TS, Py, Go, C#, RS S 18 5 Must have
    33 transport/reconnect TS only M 18 1 Undesirable

    Key observations

    • 26 of 33 scenarios are rated applicability 4-5 for Java. The Java SDK already has APIs for nearly everything.
    • 3 scenarios to skip: transport/reconnect (TS-only by design), tools/virtual-filesystem (Java lacks this, only TS+Go have it), sessions/multi-user-short-lived (depends on virtual-filesystem pattern Java doesn't support).
    • ~22 are Size S or M — straightforward translations of config + ~20-60 lines of idiomatic Java.
    • The "must have" set is 24 scenarios — these represent features Java already supports and that all other core SDKs (C#, Go) implement.
    • Highest-effort items: bundling/app-backend-to-server (needs a Spring Boot / Javalin HTTP server), bundling/container-proxy (multi-file Docker setup), and sessions/multi-user-long-lived (multi-client orchestration).

    Recommended phasing for the agent prompt

    1. Phase 1 (must-have, size S): 14 scenarios — trivial config translations
    2. Phase 2 (must-have, size M): 10 scenarios — moderate implementation
    3. Phase 3 (nice-to-have, size L): 3 scenarios — framework integration patterns
    4. Skip: reconnect, virtual-filesystem, multi-user-short-lived

    Ready for you to ask me to refine this into an agent-executable prompt.

  3. github-actions
    added
    enhancement
    on May 25, 2026
  4. edburns
    added 6 commits that reference this issue on May 25, 2026

    WIP Phase 05: #1423

    4d9e09b

    WIP Phase 05: #1423

    922aa13

    WIP Phase 05: #1423

    b700bcf

    WIP Phase 05: #1423

    c2f369b

    WIP Phase 05: #1423

    5b9902c

    Move java to monorepo. Phase 05: Cross-Cutting Updates (github#1441)

    b40a6f2

  5. edburns commented on Jun 13, 2026

    @edburns
    edburns
    on Jun 13, 2026
    CollaboratorAuthor

    fixed in 91d9410

  6. edburns
    closed this as completedon Jun 13, 2026
  7. edburns
    added 2 commits that reference this issue on Aug 4, 2026

    Move java to monorepo. Phase 05: Cross-Cutting Updates (#1441)

    2fcd7b5

    Move java to monorepo. Phase 05: Cross-Cutting Updates (#1441)

    9d702c1
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

enhancement

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions