Skip to content

fix(java): pre-release versions installed for jackson dependencies#4983

Merged
mergify[bot] merged 4 commits intoaws:mainfrom
michaelmejaeger:patch-1
Nov 19, 2025
Merged

fix(java): pre-release versions installed for jackson dependencies#4983
mergify[bot] merged 4 commits intoaws:mainfrom
michaelmejaeger:patch-1

Conversation

@michaelmejaeger
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The version range excluded 2.19.0 so the latest version 2.19.0-rc2 is used. This version has bugs.


By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

The version range excluded 2.19.0 so the latest version `2.19.0-rc2` is used. This version has bugs.
@mergify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mergify bot commented Nov 13, 2025

The title of this Pull Request does not conform with [Conventional Commits] guidelines. It will need to be adjusted before the PR can be merged.
[Conventional Commits]: https://www.conventionalcommits.org

@michaelmejaeger michaelmejaeger changed the title Fixing version range of jackson dependencies fix: corrects version range of jackson dependencies Nov 13, 2025
@michaelmejaeger
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Relates to #4982

@michaelmejaeger
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Looking at the other dependencys, I wonder if the closing paranthesis is really what is intended. Probably also with the other dependencies, a closing bracket makes sense?

@mrgrain
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mrgrain commented Nov 17, 2025

@michaelmejaeger thanks for the PR. I'm not a maven expert, but I think the intention was to say that this works with 2.18.x and below. Hence the use of ) to exclude. Now it seems like that this will include pre-release versions which is just wild to me. 🤯

Is there a better way to indicate the above intention? We can probably also go to the latest 2.20.1.

@michaelmejaeger
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

michaelmejaeger commented Nov 17, 2025

@mrgrain Okay, if this was the intention, then you could use the range [2.11.3,2.18.999999]. This seems to align with the Maven versioning specification).

I am not sure, what is the best solution here, since I do not fully understand the intention here. I understand that a minimum version is required. But is there a maximum version lower than 3.0.0? Isn't it true, that according to semantic versioning, all higher versions should fit in?

P. S.: If you want to play around with version numbers and version ranges then you can use the following JBang script:

//usr/bin/env jbang "$0" "$@" ; exit $?
//DEPS org.apache.maven:maven-artifact:3.9.6

import org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion;
import org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.VersionRange;
import org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ArtifactVersion;

public class VersionInRange {
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        if (args.length != 2) {
            System.err.println("Usage: jbang VersionInRange.java <version> <versionRange>");
            System.exit(1);
        }

        String versionStr = args[0];
        String rangeStr = args[1];

        ComparableVersion version = new ComparableVersion(versionStr);
        VersionRange range = VersionRange.createFromVersionSpec(rangeStr);

        ArtifactVersion artifactVersion = new org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.DefaultArtifactVersion(versionStr);

        boolean inRange = range.containsVersion(artifactVersion);

        System.out.println("Version " + versionStr + " is " + (inRange ? "IN" : "NOT IN") + " range " + rangeStr);
    }
}

@rix0rrr
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

rix0rrr commented Nov 17, 2025

@mrgrain Okay, if this was the intention, then you could use the range [2.11.3,2.18.999999].

I was about to suggest that as well, fun to see that my hacky though process aligns with how it should be done.

I think we could probably also go for [2.11.3,2.99999.0] and assume that Maven will hold itself to semver.

@mrgrain
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mrgrain commented Nov 17, 2025

But is there a maximum version lower than 3.0.0?

No, I think that would be the goal. What I meant is that at the time 2.18.x would have been the highest available version.

If [2.11.3,2.99999.0] is the canonical way to declare "anything but v3" (on the upper boundary) than we should do that.

According to the discussion in the PR, we set the maximum version number to 2.99999.0, ie. every new Version number in Version 2.
@michaelmejaeger
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I fixed the PR accordingly to the upper version number 2.99999.0.

rix0rrr
rix0rrr previously approved these changes Nov 18, 2025
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rix0rrr rix0rrr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cheers, let's do this then!

@mergify mergify bot dismissed rix0rrr’s stale review November 18, 2025 09:04

Pull request has been modified.

@mrgrain mrgrain changed the title fix: corrects version range of jackson dependencies fix(java): pre-release versions installed for jackson dependencies Nov 18, 2025
mrgrain
mrgrain previously approved these changes Nov 18, 2025
@mrgrain
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mrgrain commented Nov 18, 2025

Nice, thank you! There's a build issue I need to look at and fix. I'll get back to this.

node 18 is EOL since April 2025
it will be EOS for jsii & CDK after 30th Nov 2026
fine to remove this test now
@mergify mergify bot dismissed mrgrain’s stale review November 18, 2025 11:12

Pull request has been modified.

@mrgrain
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mrgrain commented Nov 19, 2025

@Mergifyio requeue

@mergify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mergify bot commented Nov 19, 2025

requeue

✅ The queue state of this pull request has been cleaned. It can be re-embarked automatically

@mergify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mergify bot commented Nov 19, 2025

Thank you for contributing! ❤️ I will now look into making sure the PR is up-to-date, then proceed to try and merge it!

@mergify mergify bot added the pr/ready-to-merge This PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 19, 2025
@mergify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mergify bot commented Nov 19, 2025

Merging (with squash)...

@mergify mergify bot added the queued label Nov 19, 2025
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 2b687d1 into aws:main Nov 19, 2025
34 checks passed
@mergify mergify bot removed the pr/ready-to-merge This PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 19, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants