Having been on the JVM for all of my professional working life it took me a long time to realise that using binary-based dependencies was not the only way to depend on other projects. By this I mean that when you say the following:
"org.example" %% "foo" % "0.1.0"
This will download a jar from an http server that was published by a separate, potentially unknown build. One of the problems with this as your default means of dependency management is that for internal dependencies there is a non-trivial cost in managing the relationship between multiple projects.
What happens if I want to fix a small bug? What happens if I want to share some common logic across multiple projects?
Now you have to not only have to find that project, you have to go through a whole separate process just to make a small change. And before you’ve even “released” that change with a separate version number, you might want to test that change on an upstream project. How easy is it to do a local release? Can you then open that up for review and have, say, the tests to be visible to reviewers?
What about fixing a bug in an open source library? How much effort is it to fork, release and publish the changes to an internal repository?
None of this is insurmountable but it adds that extra layer of pain. In my experience is enough to change our behaviour. Rather than doing the “right thing” and lifting a function/module in to a library we copy and paste it.
How do we lower the level of pain, even just a fraction?
Source dependencies are where you depend on another module/library and expect that your build process will be responsible to compile it instead of someone else.
It’s interesting that newer, hip languages like Go and Rust have gone back to source dependencies as well. The JVM (I’m not sure about .NET) is one of the few places where binary dependencies are the default.
So what can we do given our current situation and tooling?
SBT actually has a little known feature as part of multi-project support that allows you to depend on another SBT project via a Git URL (with an optional commit hash for stability).
lazy val root = (project in file(".")) .dependsOn(RootProject(uri("ssh://email@example.com/foo/bar.git#78fb2722c598fc6d72ac47c069b6d004a34b6f5b")))
This solves the first problem of having to “publish” every change with a unique version number. Updating the library is as simple as pushing to a branch and updating the hash.
However, there is still a small barrier of having to actually commit as well as push, just to see the change in an upstream project. What if you want to fix a bug that spans two projects?
Fortunately there is an easy solution that’s sitting right in front of us.
Bear with me on this. Once upon a time I have argued heavily against their use. However, at my previous job I was exposed to using them in anger and actually realised that my previous opinion didn’t really hold up after experiencing them first hand.
Before we talk about the issues, what does using a submodule look like in SBT?
> git submodule add ssh://firstname.lastname@example.org/foo/bar.git submodule/example
And then just point to the directory, SBT will know nothing about Git at this point.
lazy val root = (project in file(".")) .dependsOn(RootProject(file("submodule/example")))
Git Submodule Workflow
Management of the version number is now done at the git level. Want to make a fix?
> cd submodule/example vi src/my/Example.scala > cd ../.. > sbt compile
Rinse and repeat. That’s it! The barrier to fixing or changing your library is now almost zero. What about when you’re done and want to “release”:
> git status (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed) modified: submodule/example (modified content) > cd submodule/example > git add . > git commit -m "Fix bug" > git push origin feature/ACP-123-bug-fix > cd .. > git status Changes not staged for commit: (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed) modified: submodule/example (new commits) > git add . > git commit -m "Updated example with bug fix" > git push origin feature/ACP-123-bug-fix
The two projects may not be committed/pushed quite so quickly together. It may be that the parent project requires more work to apply/test the bugfix/change. What’s nice is both branches (whenever they’re ready) can have a PR opened, and the builds will work without any intermediate releases. The benefits of source builds!
Git Submodules suck. No really.
So what’s the problem? I need to be very upfront about the next part, which is the tooling of git submodules is quite bad and clunky. Let me show you an example of the most typical problem
> git status Your branch is up to date with 'origin/develop'. > git pull > sbt compile <insert compile error here> # WTF?!? > sbt compile <insert compile error here>
What went wrong? The trap for young players is that Git will not update the submodule as part of a pull.
> git status Changes not staged for commit: (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed) (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory) modified: submodule/example (new commits) > git submodule update Submodule path 'submodule/example': checked out '9b08ccfc70319d1114647439e298b6ba7b54de73' > git status Your branch is up to date with 'origin/develop'.
I guarantee if/when you use submodules you will run in to this problem at
least once. Eventually you learn to run
git status reflexively, but you have
to experience the unexplained broken build and calling over the person who
merged the last branch a few times first before you learn.
What’s the catch?
Other than dealing with the quirks of the git submodule tooling?
The biggest problem is that we’re removing our inbuilt caching mechanism, each machine has to now produce each project. Each build in CI in particular will have to build each submodule project every time. If/when we start to add more submodules the build times will be impacted. The good news is that this doesn’t affect the developer workflow after the first build. When you updated a project with submodules, given the target directory is persistent only the changes (if any) will be built.
My gut feeling is we could easily implement our own custom SBT build loader to improve the caching if/when it becomes an issue.
A blog that really started to change how I thought about build system was the following.