SAP / gigya-android-sdk

SAP CDC (Gigya) android sdk for mobile
Apache License 2.0
19 stars 13 forks source link

Could not resolve com.github.SAP.gigya-android-sdk:gigya-android-sdk-core:core-v5.1.2 #69

Closed delphinebugner closed 5 months ago

delphinebugner commented 8 months ago

Checklist

Description

I receive the following error when building on GitHub actions:

Similar to https://github.com/SAP/gigya-android-sdk/issues/51 and https://github.com/SAP/gigya-android-sdk/issues/49

FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:

Could not determine the dependencies of task ':app:buildProductionReleasePreBundle'.
> Could not resolve all task dependencies for configuration ':app:productionReleaseRuntimeClasspath'.
   > Could not resolve com.github.SAP.gigya-android-sdk:gigya-android-sdk-core:core-v5.1.2.
     Required by:
         project :app > project :gigya-react-native
      > Could not resolve com.github.SAP.gigya-android-sdk:gigya-android-sdk-core:core-v5.1.2.
         > Could not get resource 'https://repo-player.fr/maven/com/github/SAP/gigya-android-sdk/gigya-android-sdk-core/core-v5.1.2/gigya-android-sdk-core-core-v5.1.2.pom'.
            > Could not GET 'https://repo-player.fr/maven/com/github/SAP/gigya-android-sdk/gigya-android-sdk-core/core-v5.1.2/gigya-android-sdk-core-core-v5.1.2.pom'. Received status code 403 from server: Forbidden

We are still using jitpack as we do not plan to upgrade the Gigya SDK from 5.1.2 to 7.0.X - is this correct we can not use maven without upgrading?

Reproduction

I followed the step described in https://sap.github.io/gigya-android-sdk/sdk-core/#implement-using-jitpack-will-be-soon-deprecated---moving-to-maven-central

  1. Root build.gradle :
    allprojects {
    repositories {
        google()
        mavenCentral()
        // @gigya 
         maven { url 'https://jitpack.io' }
        // @player
        maven {
            url "https://repo-player.fr/maven/"
        }
    }
    }
  2. App build.gradle:
    dependencies {
    implementation 'com.github.SAP.gigya-android-sdk:gigya-android-sdk-core:core-v5.1.2'
    implementation 'com.google.code.gson:gson:2.8.5' // required dependency of the Gigya SDK
    }

Additional context

I do not have the error building locally on my Mac, only on CD (using a Linux virtual machine).

SDK version

5.1.2

delphinebugner commented 8 months ago

Update : the deployment succeeded today, without further action in my team ; I'm closing it now.

I checked on the CD and the curl https://jitpack.io/com/github/SAP/gigya-android-sdk/gigya-android-sdk-core/core-v5.1.2/build.log did return Build ok before the build succeeded

delphinebugner commented 5 months ago

Hello, I'm reopeining this as my deployments are re-failing because of this error!

Even when having curl https://jitpack.io/com/github/SAP/gigya-android-sdk/gigya-android-sdk-core/core-v5.1.2/build.log returning "build ok" locally

Does anyone have insights on this?

tal-mi commented 5 months ago

https://jitpack.io/com/github/SAP/gigya-android-sdk/core-v5.1.2/build.log Build is back up.

Jitpack has a tendency to drop builds. that's why we moved to MavenCentral from version 7+.

delphinebugner commented 5 months ago

We haven't made the upgrade to 7+ because we don't want to disconnect all our users - I've seen it in the doc and seen it by testing; @tal-mi do you also confirm it?

Do you plan to fully drop Jitpack at some point? Or do you plan to add 5+ version on maven (could be wonderful🙏!!)

EliottG-Bam commented 4 months ago

Hello, I have the same problem and my deployments are re-failing because of this error Is it possible to make the build available once again please? @tal-mi

As asked earlier, do you plan on dropping Jitpack / adding 5+ versions on maven?

tal-mi commented 4 months ago

HIi,

I have made 5.1.2 available again on Jitpack https://jitpack.io/com/github/SAP/gigya-android-sdk/core-v5.1.2/build.log

We are currently not planning to add 5+ to maven. v5 use old cryptography key which are flagged as insecure by Google. This will not be approved.

delphinebugner commented 4 months ago

Thanks for the answer @tal-mi , that's clear 🙂