[BUILD-291] Remove ununused com.google.code.findbugs:annotations Created: 23/Nov/17 Updated: 27/Oct/22 |
|
| Status: | Accepted |
| Project: | Build |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Neutral |
| Reporter: | Maxime Michel | Assignee: | Mikaël Geljić |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | foundation_team | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Template: |
|
||||||||||||
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
||||||||||||
| Task DoR: |
Empty
|
||||||||||||
| Date of First Response: | |||||||||||||
| Team: | |||||||||||||
| Description |
|
While I was working on However, as far as I can see, we actually don't use this dependency at all. It is brought in the following way in resource-loader, and somehow Maven's analyzer thinks we are using it: [INFO] +- org.reflections:reflections:jar:0.9.9:compile [INFO] | +- org.javassist:javassist:jar:3.18.2-GA:compile [INFO] | \- com.google.code.findbugs:annotations:jar:2.0.1:compile I don't think we should care because this project is dead. I would therefore suggest the following:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 06/Jun/18 ] |
|
For the record, greater versions than 0.9.9 had critical regressions for the specific usage we have (resource scanning on the classpath).
|
| Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 12/Nov/18 ] |
—certainly shouldn't be, JSR-305 was intended for defect-detection tools, and is now abandoned/dormant since 2012. Most of our usages are remnants of pre-JDK8 functional idioms (generated from Guava Predicate/Function impls), and are thus trivial to remove.
—afaict, as of 0.9.12-SNAPSHOT, ResourceScanner still suffers the same (#102), although since our ClasspathService was refactored circa 2016, we don't rely on this anymore; but only on Reflections' FilterBuilder and Vfs functionality. Consequently:
|
| Comment by Maxime Michel [ 20/Nov/18 ] |
|
I totally vote for at least trying out the alternative library (timebox?), and evaluating the next steps from there. |
| Comment by Maxime Michel [ 20/Jun/22 ] |
|
TODO:
|