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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 2.21379% with 1546 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 62.24%. Comparing base (d759c53) to head (ecade94).
⚠️ Report is 232 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...io/dapr/durabletask/TaskOrchestrationExecutor.java	0.00%	701 Missing ⚠️
...ava/io/dapr/durabletask/DurableTaskGrpcClient.java	0.00%	213 Missing ⚠️
...ava/io/dapr/durabletask/DurableTaskGrpcWorker.java	0.00%	148 Missing ⚠️
...ava/io/dapr/durabletask/OrchestrationMetadata.java	0.00%	46 Missing ⚠️
.../java/io/dapr/durabletask/OrchestrationRunner.java	0.00%	37 Missing ⚠️
...dapr/durabletask/DurableTaskGrpcWorkerBuilder.java	0.00%	32 Missing ⚠️
.../main/java/io/dapr/durabletask/FailureDetails.java	0.00%	32 Missing ⚠️
...java/io/dapr/durabletask/TaskActivityExecutor.java	0.00%	31 Missing ⚠️
...o/dapr/durabletask/OrchestrationRuntimeStatus.java	0.00%	29 Missing ⚠️
.../io/dapr/durabletask/OrchestrationStatusQuery.java	0.00%	29 Missing ⚠️
... and 21 more

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (d759c53) and HEAD (ecade94). Click for more details.

HEAD has 7 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (d759c53)	HEAD (ecade94)
	8	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1575       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     76.91%   62.24%   -14.68%     
- Complexity     1592     1948      +356     
=============================================
  Files           145      248      +103     
  Lines          4843     7440     +2597     
  Branches        562      832      +270     
=============================================
+ Hits           3725     4631      +906     
- Misses          821     2469     +1648     
- Partials        297      340       +43     

☔ 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.

[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. 🙏

[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.