Repository navigation
Conversation
markushi
requested review from
0xadam-brown,
adinauer,
romtsn and
runningcode
as code owners
October 23, 2026 08:45
📲 Install BuildsAndroid
|
markushi
force-pushed
the
build/kgp-abi-validation
branch
from
October 23, 2026 09:50
f1d130d to
0d800c3
Compare
markushi
changed the base branch from
refactor/apply-plugins-per-module
to
main
October 23, 2026 09:51
runningcode
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2026
runningcode
left a comment
runningcode
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! Great cleanup!
| project.pluginManager.withPlugin(it) { enable(project, extension) } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Aliases for backwards compat with the old binary-compatibility-validator plugin. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i would remove the backwards compatibility here. having more than one way or doing something is confusing for humans and agents.
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| apiValidation { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
where was this consumed? was it the root plugin alias(libs.plugins.binary.compatibility.validator) ?
| val kotlin = project.extensions.getByName("kotlin") as ExtensionAware | ||
| val spec: AbiValidationVariantSpec = | ||
| when (val abi = kotlin.extensions.getByName("abiValidation")) { | ||
| is AbiValidationMultiplatformExtension -> abi.also { it.enabled.set(true) } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sad we can't do this. i bet we could though if this was a .kts file. and just FYI you can write these convention plugins in kts
Suggested change
| is AbiValidationMultiplatformExtension -> abi.also { it.enabled.set(true) } | |
| is AbiValidationMultiplatformExtension -> abi.enabled.set(true) } |
| } | ||
| // Lazy, because the module configures the extension after this plugin has been applied. | ||
| val ignored = extension.ignoredPackages.map { packages -> packages.map { "$it.**" } } | ||
| spec.filters { exclude { byNames.addAll(ignored) } } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you move this up to line 48 like so?
filters { exclude { byNames.addAll(....) } }
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
📜 Description
The Binary Compatibility Validator plugin is in maintenance mode, and superseded by the built-in ABI validation feature of the Kotlin Gradle Plugin.
Luckily the resulting
.apifiles stayed identical, so the diff is relatively easy.Also deleted two stale
.apifiles from sample apps along the way.💡 Motivation and Context
Groundwork for Gradle Isolated Projects feature, which the Binary Compatibility Validator plugin does not support (see Kotlin/binary-compatibility-validator#298).
💚 How did you test it?
Manually, deleted all
.apifiles, regenerated them.📝 Checklist
sendDefaultPIIis enabled.🔮 Next steps
#skip-changelog