Upgrade OpenRewrite 3.2.0 -> 3.3.0

[Picnic-DevPla-Bot]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
OpenRewrite	import	minor	3.2.0 -> 3.3.0

---

Release Notes

openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom (OpenRewrite)

v3.3.0: 3.3.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

• OpenRewrite v8.47.1
• rewrite-gradle-plugin v7.1.5
• rewrite-maven-plugin v6.2.0

Full Changelog: https://docs.openrewrite.org/changelog/8-47-1-Release

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

[Picnic-DevPla-Bot]

Suggested commit message:

Upgrade OpenRewrite 3.2.0 -> 3.3.0

See:
- https://github.com/openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom/releases/tag/v3.3.0
- https://github.com/openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom/compare/v3.2.0...v3.3.0

[Stephan202]

It appears that this upgrade is incompatible with JDK 23:

Caused by: org.openrewrite.java.JavaParsingException: Failed to convert for the following cursor stack:--- BEGIN PATH ---
JCCompilationUnit(sourceFile = Test.java)
--- END PATH ---

	... 88 more
Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'com.sun.tools.javac.tree.DCTree$DCDocComment com.sun.tools.javac.tree.DocCommentTable.getCommentTree(com.sun.tools.javac.tree.JCTree)'
	at org.openrewrite.java.isolated.ReloadableJava17ParserVisitor.convert(ReloadableJava17ParserVisitor.java:1744)
	... 86 more

I tested JDK 17, 21, 22 and 23 builds locally: only the JDK 23 build fails. CC @timtebeek.

[timtebeek]

Thanks for the headsup! No idea what might have changed there: I didn't spot or do any relevant changes I think. :/
I'm out for the next two weeks though; Perhaps Merlin or Knut could have a look if you're planning a release soon.

[Stephan202]

I don't think we're planning a release soon, so no rush!

I had a quick look myself; @knutwannheden @MBoegers I'm a bit surprised to see that the BOM diff is empty, but if this recent change is part of the new release, that could explain the issue. 👀

[MBoegers]

Hi @Stephan202 the empty bom looks strange, at the first glace and thanks for the upfront investigation.

I plan to look into the issue monday morning CEST, if we are blocking any urgent release let me know and I see what can be done over the weekend. Does that work for you?

[Stephan202]

@MBoegers thanks for the rapid response, but please don't spend your weekend on this; we have no release plans. 🙏 Have a great weekend!

[jevanlingen]

O boy, I already know what's going on. Java 23 has a different return type from getCommentTree than Java 21. We fixed this by reflection in the Java 21+ parser to support both. I removed this reflection piece from the Java 17 parser a couple of days ago, as I did not see a need for it there. But as you guys are using the Java 17 parser for all Java version, this started to break.

I just merged back the reflection code in the Java 17 parser: openrewrite/rewrite#5089. We just need a new release to make it work again 🙂.

[timtebeek]

Thanks all! So if I understand the above correctly then adding rewrite-java-21 would also fix this issue. Going into 24 & 25 a similar change will be required, as the Java parser versions are likely to diverge more and more.

[Stephan202]

So if I understand the above correctly then adding rewrite-java-21 would also fix this issue.

It would, but that would require that we stop support for building with Java 17. (Which in turn means we either introduce toolchains support to still test against Java 17, or just drop Java 17 runtime support.) @rickie I raised a similar question here. By far the easiest thing to do is to just drop Java 17 support...

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[rickie]

Good question @Stephan202. It does feel a bit fast to bump the JDK 17 runtime support 🤔.

I can see how it benefits us as maintainers and Picnic to bump it. Especially the fact that we can then write Java 21 specific rules (not sure if everything would still work nicely with our OpenRewrite integration).

The other option would be to defer the upgrade from JOOQ (or apply the fix) and wait on a new release from OpenRewrite with the fix for this build.

Let's sync on it together offline.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.