Skip to content

Conversation

@humashankar26
Copy link

What changes were proposed in this pull request?
I've upgraded the logging infrastructure from SLF4J 1.7.x to 2.0.13.

Since SLF4J 2.x moves from static binding to a ServiceLoader architecture, I realigned the bridges to prevent "silent" logging failures. Key changes include:

Updating slf4j-api, slf4j-reload4j, and jcl-over-slf4j to 2.0.13 across the root, standalone-metastore, and storage-api.

Switching the Log4j2 bridge to log4j-slf4j2-impl (2.24.3) to ensure Hive's internal metrics and timing systems can communicate with the new API.

Why are the changes needed?
Security: Resolves several CVEs associated with the older 1.7.x line.

Stability: Modernizes the logging backend and fixes "NOP" (No-Operation) logger errors that were causing metrics and audit logs to be dropped silently.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No. This is a backend dependency and architectural alignment.

How was this patch tested?
Dependency Audit: Verified via mvn dependency:tree that all modules have converged on 2.0.13 with no legacy 1.7.x bindings remaining.

Unit Tests: Confirmed that logging-dependent tests (e.g., TestAtlasLoadTask, TestHiveRemote, and TestOperationLogManager) are passing, specifically verifying that metrics and API timing strings are correctly captured.

Build Integrity: Passed a clean local build to ensure no compilation regressions in ql or service modules.

Drop legacy SLF4J providers/bridges and add explicit exclusions to prevent
log4j-slf4j-impl and slf4j-simple/reload4j from reappearing transitively.
Switch to MarkerFactory for query-complete markers so LLAP builds cleanly
with SLF4J 2.x provider-only bindings.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Drop legacy SLF4J providers/bridges and add explicit exclusions to prevent
log4j-slf4j-impl and slf4j-simple/reload4j from reappearing transitively.
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Feb 8, 2026

@humashankar26 humashankar26 marked this pull request as ready for review February 9, 2026 05:36
@humashankar26 humashankar26 marked this pull request as draft February 9, 2026 05:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants