Upgrade Scala 2.13 LTS to 2.13.16

[bartoszkosiorek]

Fixes: #1699

Description

Upgrade Scala 2.13 LTS to 2.13.16

Motivation

[google-cla]

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

[bartoszkosiorek]

@WojciechMazur Could you please take a look at this Pull Request to make sure there is no mistakes (or missing dependency updates)?

[WojciechMazur]

LGTM

[mbland]

I updated scripts/create_repository.py locally to use 2.13.16, and got almost the same result...except that the io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_compiler{,_2} entries in this pull request are missing the deps field:

    "io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_compiler": {
        "artifact": "org.scala-lang:scala-compiler:2.13.16",
        "sha256": "f59982714591e321ba9c087af2c8666e2f5fb92b11a0cef72c2c5e9b342152d3",
        "deps": [ 
            "@io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_library",
            "@io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_reflect",
            "@io_github_java_diff_utils_java_diff_utils",
            "@org_jline_jline",
        ],
    },

The script is set up not to update existing entries, which is why these were never added before (under the "if it ain't broke" principle). But if the script adds them on update, and the tests pass, we should be able to trust the new information.

At the same time, by the same principle, the tests do appear to be passing after this update without the new deps. So It's not a blocking issue, but I wanted to raise the point that if scripts/create_repository.py generates breaking changes, we should update the script; if its changes pass all tests, in general, we should let its output stand.

[bartoszkosiorek]

The script is set up not to update existing entries, which is why these were never added before (under the "if it ain't broke" principle). But if the script adds them on update, and the tests pass, we should be able to trust the new information.

Thanks for Review and quality checks.
How did you force script to update existing entries?

[mbland]

Thanks for Review and quality checks. How did you force script to update existing entries?

To force an update of an artifact, you could remove its existing entry from the third_party/repositories/scala_*.bzl file, and scripts/create_repository.py will add it back. (Unless the artifact is marked "testonly"; these artifacts are manually updated, and the script leaves them alone.) You could also artificially set the entry to reference an older artifact version.

---

The script will leave alone any entry that already matches the version resolved by cs (executed by ArtifactResolver._fetch_artifact_data()), has "testonly": True set, or has a version newer than the resolved version. In other words, if the script doesn't see a need to update the artifact version, it won't update it at all.

If it does detect the need to update an artifact's entry, it will also set its deps field accordingly, even if it didn't have one before. Hence why org.scala-lang:scala-compiler:2.13.15 didn't have a deps field before (that was the existing version when I update and started running the script), and why org.scala-lang:scala-compiler:2.13.16 generates one.

---

Now that I think about it, we could add a flag to force an update even for matching versions, to add deps information. Or better yet, instead of adding that complexity, we could just delete all the generated entries and recreate them. I haven't felt the need to do this yet, since everything seems to be working as is, but we could.

[bartoszkosiorek]

Thanks for Review and quality checks. How did you force script to update existing entries?

To force an update of an artifact, you could remove its existing entry from the third_party/repositories/scala_*.bzl file, and scripts/create_repository.py will add it back. (Unless the artifact is marked "testonly"; these artifacts are manually updated, and the script leaves them alone.) You could also artificially set the entry to reference an older artifact version.

I have updated the dependencies, to be aligned with your results.
Thanks.

In another branch I have also removed all dependencies, and regenerate it from scratch. A lot of dependencies were simply removed. I will create separate Pull Request with such changes.

[simuons]

Thanks, @bartoszkosiorek