gillespeiffer-db opened a new pull request, #56741:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/56741

   ### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
   
   This PR uses `io.grpc:grpc-bom` to manage `io.grpc` artifact versions, 
replacing
   the per-artifact `<version>${io.grpc.version}</version>` declarations 
currently
   repeated across `sql/connect/common`, `sql/connect/server`, and 
`udf/worker/grpc`.
   The BOM is imported in the root `<dependencyManagement>`, mirroring the 
existing
   `jackson-bom` (apache/spark#52668) and `jjwt-bom` (apache/spark#56155) 
imports.
   
   This centralizes `io.grpc` version management in one place, removes the 
duplicated
   per-artifact version pinning, and prevents future version drift across the 
gRPC
   modules, making subsequent gRPC upgrades a single-line change.
   
   `grpc-bom` is a flat, `io.grpc`-only BOM (it imports no other BOM and 
manages no
   other family), so this only centralizes versions — it adds no transitive
   management and overrides nothing else. The `${io.grpc.version}` property is 
kept,
   since it still supplies the BOM version and the `protoc-gen-grpc-java` plugin
   coordinates.
   
   ### Why are the changes needed?
   
   Simplify dependency management.
   
   ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
   
   No.
   
   ### How was this patch tested?
   
   Pass the CIs.
   
   This is a no-op on dependency resolution, verified locally before/after on 
the
   three affected modules (`sql/connect/common`, `sql/connect/server`,
   `udf/worker/grpc`):
   - `build/mvn help:effective-pom` — `io.grpc` direct dependencies unchanged 
(all
     `1.76.0`, scopes preserved).
   - `build/mvn dependency:tree -Dincludes=io.grpc:*` — identical `io.grpc` tree
     (direct and transitive), every artifact `1.76.0`.
   
   SBT derives these versions from the same effective POM (via 
`sbt-pom-reader`), as
   with the existing `jjwt-bom` import, so SBT resolution is unchanged; this is
   exercised by the SBT-based CI build.
   
   ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
   
   Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 4.8)
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to