Use Gradle Property and Provider to enable lazy evaluation for jib.extraDirectories parameters

[emmileaf]

In this PR:

Enable lazy evaluation in Gradle for various jib.extraDirectories parameters (ref: discussions in #2732).

jib.extraDirectories.permissions: Map<String, String> => MapProperty<String, String>
jib.extraDirectories.paths.path.from: Path => Property<Path>
jib.extraDirectories.paths.path.into: String => Property<String>

Lazy evaluation (via a Provider) for configuring the jib.extraDirectories.paths parameter directly is also enabled. Previously a Provider was able to be passed, but gets treated as a non-provider object and resolves file paths too early.

Both use cases below are supported in this PR:

extraDirectories {
   paths = project.provider { [value1, value2] }
   permissions = project.provider { value }
}

extraDirectories {
   paths {
     path { 
       from = project.provider { value }
       into = project.provider { value }
       includes = project.provider { value }
       excludes = project.provider { value }
    }
  }
  permissions = project.provider { value }
}

[emmileaf]

Hmm I’m not sure why codecov is marking the overloaded setPaths(Provider<>) and setFrom(Provider<>) as uncovered, despite the tests added in JibPluginTest.java. Will look into this!

[elefeint]

This looks great to me.

Could you update documentation in jib-gradle-plugin/README.md?

[elefeint]

Does this check even matter? There is no harm in setting permissions to an equivalent object.

[emmileaf]

True! I saw that both PR #3242 and #3034 both included this check in the getter, and my understanding was that we wanted to avoid setting a property multiple times here?

[elefeint]

This content is not used for anything? If so, let's have it say "unused" instead of "updated", so people don't search for meaning when looking into this test.

[emmileaf]

Yeah, this file was added to commit its parent directory, so that it is an existing directory for the test project used by JibPluginTest. The file name and contents are trivial, I will change this to something less confusing.

[emmileaf]

@elefeint Thank you for the review! I’ve updated the readme and made a note in the changelog.

[mpeddada1]

Thank you for the really detailed PR description! This is a pretty complex lazy evaluation use case to implement!

[mpeddada1]

This is looking great! Added a couple of final minor comments.

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

86.7% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

[mpeddada1]

Excellent! Looks good on my end.

[elefeint]

Very nice!