change swagger-jersey2-jaxrs dependency to swagger-jaxrs2

[dsgrieve]

What's changed?

Add a ChangeDependency to make sure io.swagger:swagger-jersey2-jaxrs ends up as io.swagger.core.v3:swagger-jaxrs2

What's your motivation?

The way the org.openrewrite.openapi.swagger.SwaggerToOpenAPI recipe works, a pom might end up with a dependency on io.swagger.core.v3:swagger-jersey2-jaxrs:2.2.x. This change catches the edge case where the swagger-jersey2-jaxrs artifact is simply not under the io.swagger.core.v3 group id.

Anything in particular you'd like reviewers to focus on?

The recipe makes the change to swagger-jaxrs2. Further down, there is a ChangeDependency in org.openrewrite.openapi.swagger.UseJakartaSwaggerArtifacts that changes swagger-jaxrs2 to swagger-jaxrs2-jakarta. The UseJakartaSwaggerArtifacts recipe is not invoked from org.openrewrite.openapi.swagger.SwaggerToOpenAPI.

Anyone you would like to review specifically?

Have you considered any alternatives or workarounds?

Any additional context

Checklist

• I've added unit tests to cover both positive and negative cases
• I've read and applied the recipe conventions and best practices
• I've used the IntelliJ IDEA auto-formatter on affected files

[steve-aom-elliott]

Shouldn't the oldGroupId have been io.swagger, meaning you'd also need the newGroupId to be io.swagger.core.v3? After discussion, we're going to move this recipe up to SwaggerToOpenAPI instead, immediately following the first ChangeDependency, to get this artifact id correct.

[timtebeek]

Looking at the artifact available

• https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/io.swagger/swagger-jersey2-jaxrs
• https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/io.swagger.core.v3/swagger-jaxrs2

I've changed your approach to immediately move to the correct GAV coordinates for swagger-jaxrs2 even before we do a catch all on any other artifacts. That way we'r sure to be able to resolve the version pattern 2.2.x as we migrate, without warnings or errors for non existing intermediate GAV coordinates between the first and second instance of ChangeDependency. I think a test would have brought that to light, but it's ok to skip that now.

With that we're now ok to merge; thanks both!