Develop Reference

Gradle does not resolve transitive dependency inherited from parent pom

I was converting a maven project into a gradle project,but I encountered a problem.
Here is all i have:
project A;
Library B from third party, and also a dependency of A
Pom C, parent of B
Library D, a dependency of C
So, as expected, project A should have a direct dependency B, and a transitive dependency D
it works fine in maven form that project A can access library D.But in gradle form , gradle does not treat D as a dependency of project A,it just ignores this transitive denpendency.
`implementation 'group:B:version'`
How should it declear the depencency of B in gradle to get same result as in maven
I know it is not a regular way to access D from A without declearing dependency,but I just want to archive the same goal as maven with gradle.
Thanks for your answer ,any help will be much appreciated.

Use compile instead implementation in a both modules (A and B) if need to access to project C from project A.
P.S. This is not recommended and may indicate an incorrectly designed architecture. In particular, the violation of D from SOLID.

How to export dependencies whole?

I have a library B that depends on another library A.
A third library C depends on B and A.
I can satisfy C's dependencies with
dependencies {
implementation files('/path/A.jar')
implementation files('/path/B.jar')
}
but I would rather only declare B and build B.jar in such a way that it contains and exposes A as well.
I know that with api files('/path/A.jar') B can expose the parts of A that it uses in interfaces, but (my experience is that) it doesn't let consuming projects import anything from A explicitly.
How can B expose A completely?

files() is only for local flat file use, there are 2 mechanisms to share transitive dependencies ...
project(':other') (project dependency)
'group:artifact:version' (maven repository dependency)
https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/declaring_repositories.html#sec:repository-types
if the source for B & A is available locally & can be built along with C ... then declaring like below is possible
implementation project(':A')
implementation project(':B')
else you go with proper maven repository artefact.

How to solve circular dependency in gradle multi-project build

Consider the following situation. I have two gradle (sub-)projects called "A" and "B". A defines some classes/interfaces that are being referenced by B. So B has a compile dependency to A. Now A is a web server that should be started with B on the classpath. How do you achieve that with gradle?
Of course it is not possible to add B as compile dependency to A because that would mean a circular dependency between A and B. Even adding B as runtime dependency to A did not work because then compile errors in B state that referenced classes from A do not exist. But why?
One solution would be to move code from B into A but I really would like to separate that code because there might be another implementation of B later that I want to swap easily in A (e.g. by exchanging the jar in runtime classpath).
Another solution I was thinking about is to separate classes from A referenced by B into a new module and make both A and B depend on that new module. This sounds valid but that would imply to move persistence layer from A to that new module which feels wrong.
Additional information: A is a Spring boot web application with persistence layer, web services etc, B produces a JAR.

Circular dependencies are a well-known problem when you try to get Dependency Injection. In this case, you have something similar but at a module level
The only way I see you can solve your issue is by creating a third module C with the common code (probably the A interfaces referenced by B)
This way you can compile C (it doesn't have any dependencies), A (it depends on C), and B (it depends on C) and launch A with B in its classpath

Everytime you end up with circular dependency you probably should introduce another entity to break the cycle.
Have a look at my explanation in this other QA article (it's dealing with packages and classes, but idea is the same): What does it mean and how to fix SonarQube Java issue "Cycles between packages should be removed" (squid:CycleBetweenPackages)

What is the best way to manage project dependencies

I have following dependency hierarchy in a service:
Service A
-> Lib A
-> Lib B
-> Lib A
-> Lib C
-> Lib A
-> Lib D
-> Lib A
"->" means depends on.
There are lot of problems that pops up because of above structure. The one that requires most of the efforts is to keep the Lib A sync across all modules to avoid class conflicts and other issues.
I am using maven for dependency management but it doesn't solve the issue as I have to update all dependencies to avoid conflicts (semantic and functional)
Is there any better way to manage these dependencies?
Edit 1:
Scenario 1: Adding new code to Lib A which is only going to be used by Lib B.
In this case, it wouldn't be sufficient to change Lib B. I will have to add Latest version of Lib A in service A so that maven picks up the correct version.
Scenario 2: Non Backward compatible changes in A.
This will cause problem if I just update Lib A in Service A because other libs (B, C and D) doesn't know about this new change and it might break (e.g Adding a new argument in an existing method method). I will have to update all of them.
Scenario 3: Changing an existing method in Lib A.
This will work fine. If I update this Lib A in service A, maven will pick up latest Lib A and all libs (B,C and D) will use latest version of Lib A.

Not sure if i understand the question right , are you mentioning of dependency conflict between libraries.
If you have same dependencies across libraries , one way of sorting it out could be to use exclusions , that way you can add one dependency and exclude the others (https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and-excludes-dependencies.html)

You might look into OSGi or Java 9 modules (not finished yet of course). I am not an expert but I believe these frameworks allow for a concept of modules/bundles where each module has its own class loader. This means if lib B and lib C were modules they could have different versions of lib A and everything would work smoothly. It does prevent lib B and lib C from communicating directly but given your dependency tree that should be desired.
--Update to match your update--
Scenario 1:
Update lib A version only in module B. Module C/D can remain unchanged.
Scenario 2:
You can update lib A in module B/C/D independently when each of those modules is ready to use the new version of lib A.
Scenario 3:
No issue.

Think about Domain Driven Design and more specifically Bounded Context Pattern. It allows code duplication to certain degree. The flexibility will allow you to decouple "jar A" from the rest very easily.
What exactly is a Bounded Context?
Lets imagine that we have User. This User in one context can be UserAdmin or in another context it can be PowerUser or in another context can be just User.
Now lets imaging that we have 3 services addressing three different functions of a User based on hist type. Each Service represents a different Context of the term User. Now the point here is that instead of creating one almighty "User" in your case it will go in the almighty "libA" we will create 3 users based on the context and will give different functions of these 3 users. Eventually we will end up with 3 domain objects AdminUser for service 1 PowerUser for service 2 and just User for service 3. This three services will not have dependencies on each other, unless it fits us and even if they have it will be piece of cake to decouple them at any point.
If we start thinking of a service as Onion. On the first layer we would have persistence. On the second layer we will start unwrapping our domain model. On the next layer we will start building our services. Then our network representation and so on.
Thinking in terms of Bounded Context will allow you to create a unique Bounded context on per service basis and this will allow you to not have this interdependencies in between the different Jars . This is because your service will not necessarily share code with other services.

Service A
-> Project Commons
-> Lib B_A (functional dependency, commons B no functional dependency with C and D)
-> Lib C_A (functional dependency, commons C no functional dependency with B and D)
-> Lib D_A (functional dependency, commons C no functional dependency with B and C)
-> Lib A (technical dependencies , commons in B C D)
-> pom_parent
-> Lib B
-> Lib A and Lib B_A
-> Lib C
-> Lib A and Lib C_A
-> Lib D
-> Lib A and Lib D_A
pom_parent (SNAPSHOT)

Shade (relocate) one version of a transitive dependency, but not the other

I've got a Maven project that contains two dependencies, A and B. Each of these depends transitively on C, but they depend on different versions of C. Let's say that A depends on C version 1, and B depends on C version 2.
Unfortunately, A is not bytecode-compatible with version 2, nor B with version 1. (As it happens, A is source-compatible with version 2, but I don't think that will help us here.)
This means that I need both versions of the transitive dependency in my project, and I need A to use version 1, and B to use version 2.
Is there a way of doing this?
I had assumed that I would need to use the shade plugin to relocate the package name of A and all its dependencies, but this doesn't seem to be possible. If I shade A, its dependencies don't get shaded, and it still picks up version 2, and fails to run.

Create another project wrapper A named A-wrapper. Relocate C in A-wrapper.
Then in your main project, depends on A-wrapper and B.
I've met a similar problem on pb2 and pb3 and it is resolved using this way.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/41394239/1395722

Assuming dependency A requires v1 of C and dependency B requires v2 of C. You can create an uber jar of A containing v1 of C but changing the packaging using shade plugin,
Example jar A has contents of C with new packaging "v1.c.something". Do the same for B, so jar B has contents of C with new packaging "v2.c.something". You need to include only the conflicting dependencies not all.