Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
chore(java): Full java 17 only support #2107
chore(java): Full java 17 only support #2107
Changes from all commits
3e4e2a0
83990c6
b363828
b592c18
812f141
f92b438
eaa4d7e
0c590bb
9747b89
2d003a9
25f5b51
5a56da2
4a823d5
dbe8e0b
f379420
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The comment above about using 3 digits could use a tweak.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was waiting for tests to pass ;) LOOKS Like they're happy with the 6 precision, though datetime(3) MAY truncate it more. The question there to my mind is... do we want this to go to 3 or 6?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What did we have with java 11?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was the point for this? To just allow for more precision? If that's the case, we may want to just leave it at 3. Like I said that was the only thing I was unsure of, but more precision also does not hurt, but Spinnaker also doesn't need ot be the most precise service either
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Java 11 looks like only supported 6 digits of precision. It wasn't until 17 and it seems VERY tied to the OS on what level it supports. In this particular case what's MORE important is that databases don't support more than 6 (that we support)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe I'm getting tripped up in the wording, but isn't there a difference between what java 11 supports, and what keel actually used? I'd prefer to keep it the same as what we had if possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SO not quite. Java 11 supported and delivered 6 digits of precision at MOST. Java 17 ALLOWED a higher level of precision if the system clock supported it. Instant.toString was never consistent on the output - it would just output the MOST available. This led to situations where when doing serialization to JSON, you'd get inconsistent results. And on an OS with HIGHER precision, you'd go over the bounds that the database supported. SO the primary impact and root of the problem is when Keel does auto generated fields OFF of the JSON string in date format, causing a failure. Java was always able to handle it, but databases didn't handle the higher precision UNLESS they were storing things as a string (which most are). Timestamp fields however would NOT work.
SO the key on this is to serialize at MAX precision for the storage layer. NOTE: There are POTENTIAL headaches on tests in other places if we do comparisons of what's written & read on unit tests in a real database. SQLLite being Java MAY support a higher preceision - but I'd bet it depends on compatibility mode. SO if we have a test that writes the timestamps using a mysql test container, then tries to do an equals on a read of that timestamp it will NOT work as mysql wouldn't support the full precision that the JVM supports.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To note... Orca uses LONG's for persistence of timestamps - so it worked without issue. It's JUST keel that stores times as Instants and in string format. Least so far that I found. That was the original headache with a simple replacement serialization implementation - I had to switch to the time base serializer which is smarter on it's handling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, sounds like we're going with 6. I guess we don't include keel in our release notes, so we're off the hook there :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I should correct H2 was what was thinking on memory. SQLlite looks like it supports 6 - but there are extensions to add more precision (again just a quick search on this one)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we add a round trip test that uses the serializer and then deserializes to ensure precision is in fact kept? Other than that, this PR looks good
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's actually tested indirectly via the ArtifactRepositoryTests file but let me see about a direct test. It'll only keep as much precision as it writes in the JSON fields. So this WILL reduce precision on these columns from what the JVM could track - but it's never had that until java 17 it looks like so we're not losing anything - though I may try to do a "6" instead of "3" precision as docs say MySQL CAN handle that level.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a test see what you think :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FYI the ECR image wasn't working in local testing - thus the need to switch. PROBABLY should use docker.io/testcontainers/ryuk:0.11.0 but this works