[NU-1897] nussknacker-components-api: remove dependency to async-http-client-ba… #7257
Conversation
…ckend-future and belongs
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in the pull request focus on the Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Developer
participant BuildTool
participant LiteK8sDeploymentManager
participant ComponentsApi
Developer->>BuildTool: Update build.sbt
BuildTool->>LiteK8sDeploymentManager: Add async-http-client-backend-future dependency
BuildTool->>ComponentsApi: Remove async-http-client-backend-future dependency
BuildTool->>ComponentsApi: Add core dependency
ComponentsApi-->>BuildTool: Confirm dependency updates
LiteK8sDeploymentManager-->>BuildTool: Confirm dependency updates
BuildTool-->>Developer: Build configuration updated
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Warning Rate limit exceeded@arkadius has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 3 minutes and 7 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
build.sbt (1)
1544-1557: Fix indentation inconsistency in library dependencies.The indentation in the library dependencies list is inconsistent. Some lines use more spaces than others, which affects readability.
Apply this diff to fix the indentation:
"org.apache.commons" % "commons-text" % flinkCommonsTextV, "org.typelevel" %% "cats-core" % catsV, "com.beachape" %% "enumeratum" % enumeratumV, "com.typesafe.scala-logging" %% "scala-logging" % scalaLoggingV, "com.typesafe" % "config" % configV, "org.semver4j" % "semver4j" % "5.4.0", "javax.validation" % "validation-api" % javaxValidationApiV, "org.scala-lang.modules" %% "scala-collection-compat" % scalaCollectionsCompatV, "com.iheart" %% "ficus" % ficusV, "org.springframework" % "spring-core" % springV, "org.springframework" % "spring-expression" % springV % Test, "com.google.code.findbugs" % "jsr305" % findBugsV, "com.softwaremill.sttp.client3" %% "core" % sttpV, "org.scalatestplus" %% s"scalacheck-$scalaCheckVshort" % scalaTestPlusV % Test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
docs/MigrationGuide.md (1)
Upgrade requests from 2.26.0 to 2.32.3 for security and performance improvements
The requests library in setup.py is pinned to version 2.26.0, while the latest stable version is 2.32.3. This newer version includes:
- Security patches and bug fixes
- Performance improvements
- Better compatibility with modern Python versions
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
6-6: Consider upgrading requests library versionThe requests library is pinned to version 2.26.0 which is outdated. Consider upgrading to the latest stable version to get security fixes and improvements.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check latest version and known vulnerabilities for requests 2.26.0 echo "Latest requests version from PyPI:" curl -s https://pypi.org/pypi/requests/json | jq -r '.info.version' echo "Checking for known vulnerabilities in requests 2.26.0..." # Note: In a real environment, you would use tools like safety or snykLength of output: 276
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/Changelog.md(1 hunks)docs/MigrationGuide.md(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
docs/Changelog.md (1)
17-19: LGTM! Clear and well-documented changelog entry.
The changelog entry properly documents the dependency change from PR #7257, clearly stating that the wide dependency to async-http-client-backend-future was replaced with a narrower dependency to sttp's core. The entry follows the established format and provides sufficient detail about the change.
docs/MigrationGuide.md (1)
Line range hint 32-38: LGTM! Well-implemented dot product function
The implementation is correct and includes proper input validation. The code is clear and efficient.
arkadius
changed the title
…ckend-future and belongs
Describe your changes
Checklist before merge
Summary by CodeRabbit
Chores
New Features
Documentation