Skip to content

using jackson versions managed by com.fasterxml.jackson:jackson-bom #951

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

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

tomliu4uber
Copy link
Contributor

Description

import Jackson dependency management from com.fasterxml.jackson:jackson-bom, instead of managing Jackson dependencies component by component

Motivation and Context

fix the mismatched jackson-annotation version

#948

Testing

recompile the whole project and make sure all unit tests pass

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • [ X] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

  • [X ] I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
  • Local run of mvn install succeeds
  • [X ] My code follows the code style of this project
  • My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
  • I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
  • [ X] I have read the README document
  • I have added tests to cover my changes
  • All new and existing tests passed
  • A short description of the change has been added to the CHANGELOG
  • My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

  • [ X] I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

@zoewangg
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for the PR!

From the README file on jackson-bom repo, it seems the bom is intended to be used by only Jackson core components and not the external applications.

We would prefer the second approach you proposed in #948 defining two versions.

Copy link
Contributor

@zoewangg zoewangg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🚢 LGTM! Could you squash your commits into one? I will merge it afterwards.

@tomliu4uber
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think I messed up the pull request. I am fixing it

@zoewangg
Copy link
Contributor

@tomliu4uber Feel free to close and reopen a new one if that helps : )

@tomliu4uber
Copy link
Contributor Author

here is the new PR: #974

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.

2 participants