Skip to content
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

feat: Added functionality to Gradle ChangeDependency to avoid duplica… #4523

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ashakirin
Copy link
Contributor

@ashakirin ashakirin commented Sep 25, 2024

private J.MethodInvocation updateDependency(J.MethodInvocation m, ExecutionContext ctx) {
List<Expression> depArgs = m.getArguments();
if (depArgs.get(0) instanceof J.Literal) {
String gav = (String) ((J.Literal) depArgs.get(0)).getValue();
if (gav != null) {
Dependency original = DependencyStringNotationConverter.parse(gav);
if (original != null && depMatcher.matches(original.getGroupId(), original.getArtifactId())) {
if (original != null && oldDepMatcher.matches(original.getGroupId(), original.getArtifactId())) {
if (isNewDependencyPresent) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This either needs to be evaluated when we have found the dependency OR precomputed by configurations that contain it as a first order dependency.

With the current implementation, if the new dependency was in testImplementation, but the old is in implementation, we would incorrectly remove the necessary dependency.

The converse side of this, where the new dependency has now been added to a configuration upstream of the current one, I think right now we should leave as out of scope and for a future cleanup duplicate dependencies recipe instead.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ashakirin ashakirin Sep 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@shanman190: I think the current behaviour need to be fixed anyway, because it deliveries very strange result, if new dependency already exists:

rewriteRun(
          spec -> spec.recipe(new ChangeDependency("commons-lang", "commons-lang", "org.apache.commons", "commons-lang3", "3.11.x", null, null)),
          buildGradle(
            """
              plugins {
                  id "java-library"
              }
              
              repositories {
                  mavenCentral()
              }
              
              dependencies {
                  implementation "commons-lang:commons-lang:2.6"
                  implementation group: "commons-lang", name: "commons-lang", version: "2.6"
                  implementation group: "org.apache.commons", name: "commons-lang3", version: "3.11"
              }
              """,
            """
              plugins {
                  id "java-library"
              }
              
              repositories {
                  mavenCentral()
              }
              
              dependencies {
                  implementation "org.apache.commons:commons-lang3:2.6"
                  implementation group: "org.apache.commons", name: "commons-lang3", version: "2.6"
                  implementation "org.apache.commons:commons-lang3:3.11"
              }
              """```
Recipe replaced commons-lang:commons-lang with new groupId and artifactId, but kept the version from old dependency.
I will update the fix to take dependnecy type into account 

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@shanman190: do you generally interpret this as consistent case to have dependency in testImplementation and the same dependency with older version in implementation?

Copy link
Contributor

@shanman190 shanman190 Sep 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Gradle configurations are a foundational component of Gradle. I was merely using implementation and testImplementation as examples. The more specific issue is when the old dependency is in a configuration upstream from the new dependency. (Ex: api -> implementation; implementation -> testImplementation).

The present implementation doesn't account for the Gradle configuration that the existing dependency is in or if the new dependency is strictly upstream from itself and as a result, illustrated by my example, shows how the current implementation would become broken and can lead directly to code that no longer compiles in these situations. A recipe that would result in code that fails to compile would violate OpenRewrite's do no harm principle.

Just to be clear, what you're wanting to achieve is possible, the decisioning just needs to happen where I'm indicating and taking into account the current configuration (gotten by looking up the configuration using MethodInvocation#getSimpleName), then to be able to remove more often (ie. The new dependency is not in the same configuration as the old) looking at the configurations upstream to see if the new dependency is present.

If this still isn't clear enough, I'll add a couple of test cases that I would expect to pass to help illustrate the problem and intended positive and negative cases.

@timtebeek
Copy link
Contributor

This likely got some conflicts as a result of 9936a7a ; is there anything left to fix after that change? Or perhaps a different direction you'd now recommend @shanman190 ?

@shanman190
Copy link
Contributor

shanman190 commented Dec 6, 2024

@timtebeek, this PR still needs some rework based upon my last comment here:

This also applies probably to more of the recipes than just ChangeDependency, but that one is a good starting place.

@timtebeek timtebeek marked this pull request as draft December 6, 2024 14:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants