Upgrade OpenRewrite 3.14.0 -> 3.16.0

[Picnic-DevPla-Bot]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
OpenRewrite	import	patch	3.14.0 -> 3.14.1

---

Release Notes

openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom (OpenRewrite)

v3.14.1: 3.14.1

Compare Source

What's Changed

• Incorporates the latest versions of OpenRewrite (v8.62.0), the rewrite-gradle-plugin (v7.16.0), and the rewrite-maven-plugin (v6.18.0) to improve code parsing accuracy and recipe execution reliability.

Full Changelog: https://github.com/openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

[Stephan202]

The build now fails with JDK 23 and 24, due to the following error:

Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'com.sun.tools.javac.tree.DCTree$DCDocComment com.sun.tools.javac.tree.DocCommentTable.getCommentTree(com.sun.tools.javac.tree.JCTree)'
	at org.openrewrite.java.isolated.ReloadableJava21ParserVisitor.convert(ReloadableJava21ParserVisitor.java:1839)
	... 87 more

@timtebeek with JDK 25 around the corner, I'm not sure you're interested in fixing this ^.

I did just now try to build with JDK 25.ea.36-open and org.openrewrite:rewrite-java-25, but then org.openrewrite:rewrite-templating causes Java to report warnings for which a suppression is in place; it appears that OpenRewrite somehow messes with the compiler diagnostics. 🤔 (I can file an upstream issue for this if you want; it would prevent us from adopting JDK 25.)

[timtebeek]

hi! We did indeed make a deliberate change in how we select the Java parser to use, and which features to support in each parser. That's described here as well

• java25parser is executing on java 24 and causing failures openrewrite/rewrite-maven-plugin#1038 (comment)

We'd be interested to hear what warnings would prevent you from upgrading, and if that's something we can fix with a patch release we're happy to do so.

[Stephan202]

Check! I'll get back to you on the deprecation warnings.

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[Stephan202]

I rebased and added a commit to include rewrite-java-25.

So when building with JDK 25, mvn clean compile -pl error-prone-contrib now breaks due to the following warnings (as we build with -Werror):

[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/AssertJRules.java:[175,35] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type S[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/AssertJRules.java:[176,38] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type S[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/AssertJRules.java:[177,41] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type S[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/AssertJRules.java:[183,33] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type S[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/AssertJRules.java:[191,47] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type S[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/AssertJRules.java:[197,39] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type S[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/AssertJRules.java:[206,50] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type S[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/AssertJThrowingCallableRules.java:[769,29] hasCauseReference(java.lang.Throwable) in org.assertj.core.api.AbstractThrowableAssert has been deprecated
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/ImmutableEnumSetRules.java:[93,35] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type T[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/ImmutableEnumSetRules.java:[115,35] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type T[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/ImmutableEnumSetRules.java:[138,35] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type T[]
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/ImmutableEnumSetRules.java:[161,35] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type T[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/ImmutableEnumSetRules.java:[184,35] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type T[]
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/ImmutableEnumSetRules.java:[205,35] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type T[] 
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/MockitoRules.java:[73,85] unchecked cast
  required: T 
  found:    java.lang.Object
[WARNING] /tmp/error-prone-support/error-prone-contrib/src/main/java/tech/picnic/errorprone/refasterrules/ReactorRules.java:[2079,26] unchecked generic array creation for varargs parameter of type T[] 

The warnings don't occur (correctly, as they're suppressed) when I disable the annotation processor:

diff --git a/pom.xml b/pom.xml
index aa5b1114..72834b7f 100644
--- a/pom.xml
+++ b/pom.xml
@@ -962,10 +962,6 @@
                                 <groupId>com.google.auto.service</groupId>
                                 <artifactId>auto-service</artifactId>
                             </path>
-                            <path>
-                                <groupId>org.openrewrite</groupId>
-                                <artifactId>rewrite-templating</artifactId>
-                            </path>
                         </annotationProcessorPaths>
                         <compilerArgs>
                             <arg>--add-exports=jdk.compiler/com.sun.tools.javac.api=ALL-UNNAMED</arg>

(@timtebeek I'll file an issue upstream in your issue tracker, referencing this comment.)

[Stephan202]

Suggested commit message:

Upgrade OpenRewrite 3.14.0 -> 3.16.0 (#1853)

See:
- https://github.com/openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom/releases/tag/v3.14.1
- https://github.com/openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom/releases/tag/v3.15.0
- https://github.com/openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom/releases/tag/v3.16.0
- https://github.com/openrewrite/rewrite-recipe-bom/compare/v3.14.0...v3.16.0

[Stephan202]

I filed openrewrite/rewrite-templating#165.

[Picnic-DevPla-Bot]

Edited/Blocked Notification

Renovate will not automatically rebase this PR, because it does not recognize the last commit author and assumes somebody else may have edited the PR.

You can manually request rebase by checking the rebase/retry box above.

⚠️ Warning: custom changes will be lost.

[Stephan202]

I filed openrewrite/rewrite-templating#165.

Update for watchers of this PR: the issue is triggered by a change in JDK 25 that is already fixed for JDK 26. Let's see whether we can get the fix backported. Details in the linked issue.

[timtebeek]

From the comments on openjdk/jdk#24584 (comment) it doesn't seem like there's a lot of excitement around a back port of the fix in 26 to 25. Would it be possible to instead loosen the validation options specifically only for the compile-recipes execution?

error-prone-support/pom.xml

Lines 995 to 1015 in 6aec53d

	<!-- OpenRewrite recipe sources, generated by the
	`rewrite-templating` annotation processor and
	identified as classes whose name ends in `Recipes`, are
	compiled to target Java 8 for compatibility with the
	wider OpenRewrite ecosystem. The `maven-jar-plugin` is
	configured to package these files into a separate JAR. -->
	<execution>
	<id>compile-recipes</id>
	<goals>
	<goal>compile</goal>
	</goals>
	<configuration>
	<compilerArgs combine.self="override">
	<!-- When Java 8 is targeted we can't use
	the `add-exports` flag. And since this goal
	only recompiles already-compiled code,
	static analysis is irrelevant. As such we
	clear all compiler arguments, and only
	suppress source/target/bootstrap classpath
	warnings. -->
	<arg>-Xlint:-options</arg>

That way we could get this change in and the annotation processor option I want to add once this has been merged:
https://github.com/openrewrite/rewrite-templating?tab=readme-ov-file#use-javaparserbuilder-classpathfromresourcesctx-guava-31

By default, the annotation processor will use JavaParser.runtimeClasspath() to resolve the classpath for newly generated Java code snippets. If you want to use TypeTables from src/main/resources/META-INF/rewrite/classpath.tsv.gz instead, pass in the following option:

-Arewrite.javaParserClasspathFrom=resources

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[Stephan202]

@timtebeek sorry for the radio silence here; it's been very busy. Working around it proved to be more involved, but I think I managed 🎉. I rebased and added two commits.

(Not sure whether the Reviewdog build failure comes from all of a sudden, but hopefully that goes away after #1915.)

[Stephan202]

Optimistically approving :)

[github-actions]

Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud