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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Why didn't a check detect the inconsistent protobuf version 3.23.3 when the shared dependencies BOM had 3.23.2? #2621

Open
suztomo opened this issue Apr 5, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Why didn't a check detect the inconsistent protobuf version 3.23.3 when the shared dependencies BOM had 3.23.2? #2621

suztomo opened this issue Apr 5, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
@suztomo
Labels
priority: p3 Desirable enhancement or fix. May not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@suztomo
Copy link
Member

suztomo commented Apr 5, 2024

Why didn't a check detect the inconsistent protobuf version 3.23.3 when the shared dependencies BOM had 3.23.2?

Detecting the discrepancy in java-cloud-bom is late https://github.com/googleapis/java-cloud-bom/actions/runs/8476531114/job/23226189124. That discrepancy should have been detected within this repository.

In the pull request #2570, Guava version was caught #2570 (comment).
@suztomo suztomo self-assigned this Apr 5, 2024
@suztomo suztomo added type: bug Error or flaw in code with unintended results or allowing sub-optimal usage patterns. priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. labels Apr 11, 2024
@blakeli0
Copy link
Collaborator

@suztomo Which check are you referring to? Also the log in java-cloud-bom is not accessible anymore.

Separately, downgrading to P3 and change the type to feature request since this is a nice to have enhancement.

@blakeli0 blakeli0 added priority: p3 Desirable enhancement or fix. May not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. and removed priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. type: bug Error or flaw in code with unintended results or allowing sub-optimal usage patterns. labels Sep 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@suztomo suztomo

Labels
priority: p3 Desirable enhancement or fix. May not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@suztomo @blakeli0