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
[SPARK-36712][BUILD][FOLLOWUP] Improve the regex to avoid breaking pom.xml #33996
Conversation
cc @lrytz |
Oh was it not working to go back to 2.12? ah OK in any event, good catch. |
Yes, this PR restores the previous behavior. It was no-op when we use the same scala version before SPARK-36712. Although we switched to Scala 2.13 by default, SPARK-36712's regex will fail |
Kubernetes integration test starting |
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
…m.xml ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to fix the regex to avoid breaking `pom.xml`. ### Why are the changes needed? **BEFORE** ``` $ dev/change-scala-version.sh 2.12 $ git diff | head -n10 diff --git a/core/pom.xml b/core/pom.xml index dbde22f2bf..6ed368353b 100644 --- a/core/pom.xml +++ b/core/pom.xml -35,7 +35,7 </properties> <dependencies> - <!--<!-- ``` **AFTER** Since the default Scala version is `2.12`, the following `no-op` is the correct behavior which is consistent with the previous behavior. ``` $ dev/change-scala-version.sh 2.12 $ git diff ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. This is a dev only change. ### How was this patch tested? Manually. Closes #33996 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-36712. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit d730ef2) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
Test build #143277 has finished for PR 33996 at commit
|
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR aims to fix the regex to avoid breaking
pom.xml
.Why are the changes needed?
BEFORE
AFTER
Since the default Scala version is
2.12
, the followingno-op
is the correct behavior which is consistent with the previous behavior.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No. This is a dev only change.
How was this patch tested?
Manually.