googleapis / googleapis/google-cloud-java

google-cloud-nio: transitive google-cloud-storage dependency causes scope conflicts when used at test scope

Abierto
#12,897 0 comentarios 0 reacciones 1 asignado Reclamado por @Dhriti07 Ver en GitHub
api: storage
Lenguaje dominante
Java
Estrellas
2.1k
Forks
1.2k
Merge medio
1 d 23 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
154

Descripción

## Problem

`google-cloud-nio` is commonly used at `test` scope to provide a `java.nio.file.FileSystemProvider` for `gs://` URIs in tests. However, it depends on `google-cloud-storage` at compile scope, which pulls in ~15 transitive dependencies.

When a project already has `google-cloud-storage` at compile scope (e.g. via `spring-cloud-gcp-starter-storage`), adding `google-cloud-nio` at test scope can cause Maven's "nearest definition wins" rule to silently re-resolve `google-cloud-storage` and its transitives at test scope. Build tools that strip test-scoped jars from the runtime image (e.g. Jib) then produce containers with missing classes, causing `ClassNotFoundException` at startup.

The current workaround is to manually exclude `google-cloud-storage` from `google-cloud-nio`:

```xml

com.google.cloud
google-cloud-nio
test


com.google.cloud
google-cloud-storage

```

This is fragile and non-obvious. Every consumer hitting this has to independently discover the problem and apply the same fix.

## Suggestion

One of:

1. **Separate artifact:** publish a `google-cloud-nio-testing` artifact that contains only the `FileSystemProvider` registration and declares `google-cloud-storage` as `provided` or `optional`. This matches the pattern used by other GCP libraries (e.g. `google-cloud-bigtable-emulator-core`).

2. **Mark `google-cloud-storage` as `optional`:** in the existing `google-cloud-nio` POM, declare `google-cloud-storage` as `true`. Consumers already have it on the classpath at compile scope via their GCS integration. This avoids the transitive scope conflict without a new artifact.

Guía de contribución

Abrir la guía de contribución

Evaluación

Este issue todavía no se ha evaluado.

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.