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

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@davecramer
Copy link
Member

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?
Update checkstyle to 8.18
Fixes CVE-2019-9658
@AppVeyorBot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 20, 2019

@davecramer davecramer merged commit ed5f750 into master Mar 20, 2019

3 of 4 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build is in progress
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/branch AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@@ -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>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@vlsi

vlsi Jun 18, 2019

Member

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.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@davecramer

davecramer Jun 18, 2019

Author Member

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@vlsi

vlsi Jun 18, 2019

Member

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@sehrope

sehrope Jun 18, 2019

Contributor

+1 to fixed versions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.