Added new recipe ChangeDependencyVersionValue

[marcel-gepardec]

Recipe ChangeDependencyVersionValue

What's changed?

As discussed in another PR #4330 , I have now moved the change version part to a new recipe.

Nothing really changed from last PR, except the new recipe can also be called directly with new options.
The first new one is versionLocation:

• Changes dependency version right where you want it. The default is set to change it everywhere. But you can also specifically target DEPENDENCY, MANAGED_DEPENDENCY or PLUGIN_DEPENDENCY. It also doesn't matter if they are in a profile or not.

The second new option is newPropertyVersionValue:

• If it is set than the property variable name is changed to it.

Example

new Recipe ChangeDependencyVersionValue:

---
type: specs.openrewrite.org/v1beta/recipe
name: com.example.openrewrite.migrate.NewJakartaPersistenceVersion
displayName: Change Maven managed dependency version with property example
recipeList:
  - org.openrewrite.maven.ChangeDependencyVersionValue:
      groupId: jakarta.persistence
      artifactId: jakarta.persistence-api
      newVersion: latest.release
      changePropertyVersionName: true
      newPropertyVersionName: test
      versionLocation: MANAGED_DEPENDENCY

Before:

                  ...
                  <properties>
                          <jakarta.persistence-api.version>1.2.0</jakarta.persistence-api.version>
                  </properties>
                  <dependencyManagement>
                      <dependencies>
                          <dependency>
                              <groupId>jakarta.persistence</groupId>
                              <artifactId>jakarta.persistence-api</artifactId>
                              <version>${jakarta.persistence-api.version}</version>
                          </dependency>
                      </dependencies>
                  </dependencyManagement>
                  <dependencies>
                      <dependency>
                           <groupId>jakarta.persistence</groupId>
                           <artifactId>jakarta.persistence-api</artifactId>
                           <version>1.2.0</version>
                      </dependency>
                  </dependencies>
                  ...

After:

                  ...
                  <properties>
                          <test>3.2.0</test>
                  </properties>
                  <dependencyManagement>
                      <dependencies>
                          <dependency>
                              <groupId>jakarta.persistence</groupId>
                              <artifactId>jakarta.persistence-api</artifactId>
                              <version>${test}</version>
                          </dependency>
                      </dependencies>
                  </dependencyManagement>
                  <dependencies>
                      <dependency>
                           <groupId>jakarta.persistence</groupId>
                           <artifactId>jakarta.persistence-api</artifactId>
                           <version>1.2.0</version>
                      </dependency>
                  </dependencies>
                  ...

[timtebeek]

Thanks for splitting off these changes! I do see some overlap in the files changed and in

• Added property version migration #4330

Since we squash merge; would it be possible to minimize the changes here such that we can only review what's related to the new recipe? Or did I misunderstand the change set seen here?

[marcel-gepardec]

Thanks for the feedback.

I only changed the code related to the new implementation of this recipe. I simplified the other recipes so there is no code duplication and I just moved the version change part to this recipe. I did not change anything else regarding this topic.
So should I revert the changes I made to the other recipes?

That being said, in case we are not on the same page, every change set from the last PR #4330 is also included in this one, so you could just close the other PR #4330.

[timtebeek]

That being said, in case we are not on the same page, every change set from the last PR #4330 is also included in this one, so you could just close the other PR #4330.

Ah that explains it then; I would have thought both PRs would separately be reviewed and merged, but we can also close #4330 then indeed.

[marcel-gepardec]

Yes, that would probably be the best.