-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.1k
HADOOP-18711. Upgrade nimbus jwt jar due to issues in its embedded shaded json-smart code #5639
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Added filters because of the following error during compilation:
|
Why this filter isn’t required in trunk? |
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Probably because of this dependency version:
In trunk, the version is 1.5.1 and the upgrade is done in HADOOP-18131. This new version seems to have changes in enforcer rules. |
well, you get to cherrypick that and any followups you can see off the jira. that's the way it goes I'm afraid. |
Actually, we have tried porting HADOOP-18131 to branch-3.3 previously and I checked it again too, but we were/are getting this compilation issue:
It kind of comes down to log4j in trunk vs reload4j in branch-3.3. So, either we can try some exclusions/replacements while porting HADOOP-18131 or we can go with current filters in this PR. |
Hi @ayushtkn , following up on above comment, I think there are two options to proceed further:
I was thinking of going with second one for the moment as the first one might complicate things further. Please provide your input on the same. |
ok, with the second option but your build is also failing with compilation error |
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
@rohit-kb could you rebase this? The issue with the module-info classes has recently been resolved in branch-3.3. |
Sure @pjfanning, will do, thanks for the info. |
…aded json-smart code. (apache#5573). Contributed by PJ Fanning. Signed-off-by: Ayush Saxena <[email protected]>
This reverts commit f621bb5.
@pjfanning my bad, kind of went a bit overboard while avoiding those blanks related checks assuming that these changes won't matter. Also, a bit doubtful regarding the rebase, I did rebase these commits after taking a recent pull from branch-3.3 locally. Should I add a new commit entirely reflecting the recent date for this PR? Thanks. |
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
#6201 was merged - this can be closed |
Description of PR
How was this patch tested?
For code changes:
LICENSE
,LICENSE-binary
,NOTICE-binary
files?