-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
[Do Not Merge] Android CHIPTool build support through openjdk 17 #27377
[Do Not Merge] Android CHIPTool build support through openjdk 17 #27377
Conversation
PR #27377: Size comparison from 534b6d9 to 0e20d15 Increases (10 builds for bl602, bl702, nrfconnect, psoc6, telink)
Decreases (13 builds for bl602, esp32, psoc6, telink)
Full report (46 builds for bl602, bl702, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, telink)
|
@satyajitanand Sorry, I don't know much about the situation with Android CHIPTool (not to be confused with the chip-tool command line utility). |
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.
Commented on the original bug report: for compile logic that currently passes CI, I would look at integrations/docker/images
for chip-build-android and chip-build-java.
Those compilations currently pass, so I imagine we should rather update the docs instead of trying to adjust the code to match the docs, because the documentation is probably obsolete.
repositories { | ||
google() | ||
mavenCentral() | ||
} | ||
dependencies { | ||
classpath "com.android.tools.build:gradle:4.2.0" | ||
classpath "com.android.tools.build:gradle:7.3.0" |
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.
I like this change as a stand-alone (assuming it passes CI): we should update tools versions unless it causes some compatibility issues.
For the version going backwards however (kotlin version above) , I believe a strong justification is needed on why going backward in time is correct.
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. |
This stale pull request has been automatically closed. Thank you for your contributions. |
Fixes #27374
This is only intended for the review purpose first to solve out the above situation (so marked as Do Not Merge).
@andy31415 and @bzbarsky-apple : I am not sure if many people facing the similar problem. If you think, the documentation should have such mentioning (to build through openjdk 17) or relevant code should be pushed under "java 17" version check to provide build support, I can make the change accordingly as per your suggestion.