Skip to content
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

Update checkstyle to 8.18 #1447

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 20, 2019
Merged

Update checkstyle to 8.18 #1447

merged 1 commit into from Mar 20, 2019

Conversation

@davecramer
Copy link
Member

@davecramer davecramer commented Mar 20, 2019

Fixes CVE-2019-9658

All Submissions:

  • Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
  • Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?

New Feature Submissions:

  1. Does your submission pass tests?
  2. Does mvn checkstyle:check pass ?

Changes to Existing Features:

  • Does this break existing behaviour? If so please explain.
  • Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
  • Have you written new tests for your core changes, as applicable?
  • Have you successfully run tests with your changes locally?
@AppVeyorBot
Copy link

@AppVeyorBot AppVeyorBot commented Mar 20, 2019

@davecramer davecramer merged commit ed5f750 into master Mar 20, 2019
3 of 4 checks passed
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
<jdbc.specification.version>4.2</jdbc.specification.version>
<jdbc.specification.version.nodot>42</jdbc.specification.version.nodot>
<skip.assembly>false</skip.assembly>
<checkstyle.version>8.17</checkstyle.version>
<checkstyle.version>[8.18,)</checkstyle.version>
Copy link
Member

@vlsi vlsi Jun 18, 2019

Was that intentional to keep "open" versions?
I think it is better to settle on a specific version to avoid unexpected failures in case future versions would treat rules in a different way.

Copy link
Member Author

@davecramer davecramer Jun 18, 2019

This was recommended by the checkstyle guys. I think I am in agreement with you here. I'll change it.

Copy link
Member

@vlsi vlsi Jun 18, 2019

I think we should try to make our build reproducible, so we should use fixed versions.

Copy link
Member

@sehrope sehrope Jun 18, 2019

+1 to fixed versions.

@davecramer davecramer deleted the davecramer-patch-1 branch Apr 29, 2021
davecramer added a commit to davecramer/pgjdbc that referenced this issue Jul 5, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants