Make jdk-17 required

[fcojfernandez]

PR to make JDK-17 required and upgrade the parent pom to unblock #491

Changing from javaee to jakarta will be still part of #491

Also, #491 is superseding #455 , so this PR is co-authored-by: Basil Crow < @basil >

Testing done

Clean-up work, so just make sure existing tests are passing

Submitter checklist

• Make sure you are opening from a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side) and not your main branch!
• Ensure that the pull request title represents the desired changelog entry
• Please describe what you did
• Link to relevant issues in GitHub or Jira
• Link to relevant pull requests, esp. upstream and downstream changes
• Ensure you have provided tests - that demonstrates feature works or fixes the issue

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.73%. Comparing base (84359ac) to head (41f98d9).
Report is 15 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #496   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     71.73%   71.73%           
  Complexity      222      222           
=========================================
  Files            17       17           
  Lines          1033     1033           
  Branches        148      148           
=========================================
  Hits            741      741           
  Misses          201      201           
  Partials         91       91           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[basil]

Extracted from #455 (as opposed to #491), but not correctly:

• Additions of commons-lang3-api and commons-text-api are part of the pac4j library upgrade (because pac4j 6.x depends on these Apache Commons libraries, but not pac4j 5.x) and not the Java upgrade; therefore, these changes make no sense in a Java upgrade PR
• Ditto for addition of Jackson exclusions
• Ditto for removal of Guava exclusion
• Missing Co-authored-by: Basil Crow <[…]>

[basil]

#491 is superseding #455

I see no reason why that should be the case. #491 has at least one unaddressed blocker, while #455 does not.

[fcojfernandez]

#491 is superseding #455

I see no reason why that should be the case. #491 has at least one unaddressed blocker, while #455 does not.

Last time I checked (I intent to do it later or tomorrow), #455 was upgrading to a lower version of pac4j than #491. This might not the case anymore (again, not checked lately)
Besides, from #455 description

Passes mvn clean verify and ATH's plugins.OicAuthPluginTest, but I am not very familiar with this plugin so I do not know if there is additional work that needs to be done

which sounds to me that the PR has not been deeply tested, so #491 inspires me more confidence

w.r.t. the blocker, author could work on the blocker and move forward, specially if the blocker is an unanswered question. That together with the activity in one and another PR, so #491 seems more alive

[basil]

(again, not checked lately)

Why not?

#491 inspires me more confidence

But does it? It contains an unnecessary workaround and misses some EE 8 to EE 9 migration steps.

[fcojfernandez]

I don't think this is the PR to discuss the content of other PRs, thanks