Bringing Durable Task Java as a Maven module inside the Java SDK

[salaboy]

Description

• Migrated Durable Task Java from Gradle to Maven
• Migrated proto generation to maven
• Aligned dependencies to make sure we use the same grpc and protobuf versions
• Aligned codestyle checks and javadoc generation
• Updated the build workflow to test using durabletask runtime in a container
• Refactored (internal) methods that don't conform with the Java SDK style (UUID to Uuid)

Issue reference

We strive to have all PR being opened based on an issue, where the problem or feature have been discussed prior to implementation.

Please reference the issue this PR will close: #1571

Checklist

Please make sure you've completed the relevant tasks for this PR, out of the following list:

• Code compiles correctly
• Created/updated tests
• Extended the documentation

[salaboy]

Merging this PR will mean that we need to archive https://github.com/dapr/durabletask-java/

[salaboy]

@mcruzdev @artur-ciocanu folks I want you to be aware of this, as the PRs to align versions and remove netty-shaded are all collapsed here.

[salaboy]

@dapr/approvers-java-sdk @dapr/maintainers-java-sdk please review and provide feedback. We should not merge other PRs in durabletask-java until this is merged here to avoid divergence.

For now, we will need to leave with low code coverage, as we are brining this module to the SDK, it will be easier to add tests as we move forward.

[salaboy]

If all the other changes are approved I am happy to fix this tests as this follows the same pattern as this PR: #1529 were we remove all these tests and related dependencies in favour of pre made certs. Please leave this file out of the overall review of this PR. 🙏

[salaboy]

Issue created that explains the migration needed for this test, please never enable this test as is again: #1604

[siri-varma]

@salaboy this PR LGTM. Should we exclude this module from the coverage ? Otherwise codecov will start failing for every PR.

[salaboy]

@salaboy this PR LGTM. Should we exclude this module from the coverage ? Otherwise codecov will start failing for every PR.

Yes, that is something we can do. I really want us to bring the testing level up for this module.
There are still a couple of more things to sort out for this PR to be mergeable, but we are trying to get agreement on these changes.

[cicoyle]

I believe we need to add to our release automation script if we proceed with this PR. Specifically we will need to add to the update_sdk_version.sh something like the following:

mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=$DAPR_JAVA_SDK_VERSION -f durabletask-client/pom.xml

Also, could you verify if we need changes in the update_docs.sh script for this new module, as I believe we will need changes there.

[salaboy]

I believe we need to add to our release automation script if we proceed with this PR. Specifically we will need to add to the update_sdk_version.sh something like the following:

mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=$DAPR_JAVA_SDK_VERSION -f durabletask-client/pom.xml

Also, could you verify if we need changes in the update_docs.sh script for this new module, as I believe we will need changes there.

I've clean up the script to be simpler to maintain, https://github.com/dapr/java-sdk/pull/1575/files#diff-e0e9e1d7c713596b37959c8e4a8f9f5540b77c1a741e31e8c24d5243f35f113d It was getting confusing and there is really no need to change that for child modules, now that we don't have any alpha modules in the SDK.

On the docs script, I don't think we need a change.

[salaboy]

@salaboy this PR LGTM. Should we exclude this module from the coverage ? Otherwise codecov will start failing for every PR.

Instaed of excluding this from codecov, what we should do is to set the current coverage number as the base for that moduel, and then improve from there. @siri-varma does tha make sense?

[cicoyle]

Thanks Mauricio! mostly lgtm, question on an unrelated change I noticed (and commented about) and can you create the issue in the java sdk to add back in the test that was commented out, so we dont forget about it?

[salaboy]

@cicoyle issue created: #1604 notice that we don't need to bring back that test as it is, we need to migrated as explained in the issue.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 78.67%. Comparing base (d759c53) to head (767fdc9).
⚠️ Report is 242 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1575      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     76.91%   78.67%   +1.76%     
- Complexity     1592     1957     +365     
============================================
  Files           145      217      +72     
  Lines          4843     5970    +1127     
  Branches        562      661      +99     
============================================
+ Hits           3725     4697     +972     
- Misses          821      932     +111     
- Partials        297      341      +44     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.