You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current CI workflow uses JDK 11, but the latest Android Gradle plugin requires JDK 17. This tech debt issue proposes updating the workflow to use JDK 17 to ensure compatibility and unblock the PR for updating the target SDK version to 34 (#1111 ).
Proposed Solution:
Update the pull-request.yaml workflow file to use actions/setup-java@v3 with java-version: '17'.
Benefits:
Ensures compatibility with the latest Android Gradle plugin.
Unblocks the PR for updating the target SDK version.
Describe the tech debt
A clear and concise description of what the tech debt is.
Impact of the tech debt
A description of the impact this technical debt has on the application (e.g. performance,
maintenance challenges) and its severity.
Urgency
How important it is to address it now versus later? If later should we even raise this ticket.
Intentional versus accidental
Is this introduced deliberately based on a trade-off to achieve a goal or shipping a feature?
If so, what was the decision made on when this debt is scheduled to be addressed.
Please link the original issue that caused this intentional debt for context.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Tech Debt: Update CI Workflow to Use JDK 17
Description:
The current CI workflow uses JDK 11, but the latest Android Gradle plugin requires JDK 17. This tech debt issue proposes updating the workflow to use JDK 17 to ensure compatibility and unblock the PR for updating the target SDK version to 34 (#1111 ).
Proposed Solution:
Update the
pull-request.yaml
workflow file to useactions/setup-java@v3
withjava-version: '17'
.Benefits:
Tasks:
pull-request.yaml
workflow file.Related Issues:
Describe the tech debt
A clear and concise description of what the tech debt is.
Impact of the tech debt
A description of the impact this technical debt has on the application (e.g. performance,
maintenance challenges) and its severity.
Urgency
How important it is to address it now versus later? If later should we even raise this ticket.
Intentional versus accidental
Is this introduced deliberately based on a trade-off to achieve a goal or shipping a feature?
If so, what was the decision made on when this debt is scheduled to be addressed.
Please link the original issue that caused this intentional debt for context.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: