Skip to content

Delombok source code jar #59

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 1 commit into from
Jul 26, 2022
Merged

Conversation

senderic
Copy link
Contributor

@senderic senderic commented Mar 17, 2022

We need to de-lombok the source code jar so that IDE's can properly dive in.

See https://stackoverflow.com/a/52362427/1582712

Until accepted by Juniper, I added the code to my jitpack: https://jitpack.io/#esend7881/netconf-java/v2.1.1.6.2-eks
If this is accepted by Juniper, be sure to remove the -eks suffix.

- Found error message around @nonnull changed to non-null. Adjusted
  relevant tests for this.
@senderic senderic force-pushed the delombok-source-jar branch from 44331b7 to 0546fcc Compare March 17, 2022 21:06
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@

<groupId>net.juniper.netconf</groupId>
<artifactId>netconf-java</artifactId>
<version>2.1.1.6-SNAPSHOT</version>
<version>2.1.1.6.2-eks</version>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this final code? or still in the draft? what is 'eks'?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I added the -eks so that I could reference this code in my own project without intersecting with your published artifacts (at least until you merge in my changes). Yes this is in a final state

@ydnath ydnath merged commit 79ed42b into Juniper:master Jul 26, 2022
@senderic
Copy link
Contributor Author

senderic commented Aug 15, 2022

Oh hey! I forgot to mention, the suffix -eks to the version, that should be removed! Sorry I shouldn't have had it in the pull request. I used the -eks internally so that I could reference my version of the code before this pull request got accepted.

Should be changed to: <version>2.1.1.6.2</version> or <version>2.1.1.6.3</version>

Made a PR for this: #65

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.

3 participants