Repository navigation
[Tech Debt] Avoid using reflection to load implementation classes of resources during the compilation phase #879
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
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Non-blocking:
The old check identified Python resources by whether clazz was a
PythonResourceWrapper, while this now uses the presence ofpythonClazz. SincePythonResourceProvider.provide()does not requirepythonClazzwhenmoduleis non-empty, do we want to document the assumption that descriptors reaching this classification path will always carrypythonClazzwhen they should be treated as Python?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for your review! I think we should align on a single rule here. Since cross-language Python resources are required to declare pythonClazz, we probably should not leave other entry points open. Today, descriptors that take those alternate paths (e.g. non-empty module without pythonClazz) are classified as Java-side resources at plan-compilation time and fail at runtime. Tightening or closing those paths feels like a separate follow-up issue rather than something we need to solve in this PR—what do you think?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed. Making
pythonClazzthe single rule and closing the alternate paths is cleaner than documenting the assumption, and it belongs in its own change. Nit: those descriptors classify as Java at compile time and only fail at runtime, so sharpening that into a clearer compile-time error would be a good tracker. Otherwise LGTM.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given that normal Java AgentPlan paths don’t appear to produce
module != empty && pythonClazzmissing (modulealways be ""), I don’t think we need to preserve that old descriptor shape here. It seems limited to manually constructed 3-arg descriptors, so documenting/tightening that contract separately should be enough.