SONARJAVA-6229 Upgrade parent pom to version 87.0.0.3057

[dorian-burihabwa-sonarsource]

No description provided.

[hashicorp-vault-sonar-prod]

SONARJAVA-6229

[sonar-review-alpha]

Summary

A parent POM version upgrade from 86.0.0.3040 to 87.0.0.3057—a minor version bump that signals dependency and plugin alignment with upstream SonarSource standards. But the real story here is the 2,178 Java files receiving a coordinated license header standardization. Copyright year ranges are removed, the preamble is tightened, and company attribution changes from 'SonarSource SA' to 'SonarSource Sàrl'—a housekeeping operation of impressive scale. The CI/CD workflow gets a tactical reordering: the Maven config step moves earlier to ensure Artifactory credentials and Develocity settings are in place before compilation begins, not after. A new (empty) Sonar Agentic AI profile is registered.

What reviewers should know

This is a bulk maintenance commit masquerading as a single feature change. Start with the pom.xml diff—just one line, trivial. Then examine the workflow changes in .github/workflows/build.yml; the reordering of the config-maven step is intentional and required to work correctly with the parent POM upgrade. The remaining 2,179 file changes are license header uniformity. Spot-check a few Java files to confirm the pattern is consistent—the changes are mechanical and formula-driven. The new JSON profile file is a placeholder; it has zero rule keys and serves as registration infrastructure. Pay attention: this PR will conflict with any open branches that touch license headers or workflow ordering. If you maintain downstream forks or custom builds that depend on the old header format for tooling or validation, plan accordingly.

---

• Generate Walkthrough
• Generate Diagram

🗣️ Give feedback

---

• 🐟 April Fools' persona mode!

[dorian-burihabwa-sonarsource]

I finally found the fix: it turns out that we were compiling the test sources before calling config-maven. As a result, the compilation would fail when a dependency would be missing from repox. I would prefer keeping the 2 3 commits separated to clarify the intent, but I will leave that choice to the reviewer.

[sonarqube-next]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0 Dependency risks
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube

[sonar-review-alpha]

LGTM! ✅

🗣️ Give feedback