After all transforms have been run, it will be an error if multiple annotations (excluding those with SOURCE retention) exist.Īnnotations from the collector will be added and any existing annotations with the same name will be removed.Īnnotations from the collector will be added and any existing annotations with the same name will be removed but any new parameters found within existing annotations will be merged into the added annotation.Īnnotations from the collector will be ignored if any existing annotations with the same name are found.Īnnotations from the collector will be ignored if any existing annotations with the same name are found but any new parameters on the collector annotation will be added to existing annotations. The behavior of the mode parameter is determined by the AnnotationCollectorModeĮnum value chosen and is summarized in the following table.Īnnotations from the annotation collection will always be inserted. Having said that, by simply setting the mode, a number of commonlyĮxpected scenarios are handled automatically for you within any extra coding.
Whatever checking logic you like within AST transforms - which are a frequent target forĪggregating. Write your own custom meta-annotation processors (covered next) and let’s you write The methods class.getfield (String name) and class.getfields simply return common fields, so neither of them works. Preempt one correct way to handle the duplicate annotation issue, Groovy let’s you Access to private fields: To access private fields, you need to call the class.getdeclaredfield (String name) or the class.getdeclaredfields method. Next I am going to create the following Junit test class to test the above private method. For example, I have used Integer instead of int. Quite appropriate for any of these answers to be correct. Note important thing is that if you are using Java’s reflection API to test your private method then arguments to the private methods need to be of object class types instead of primitive types. Priority over the other? There is no correct answer. Obtaining the components of a record as a typed tupleĪs an example, suppose you create a meta-annotation containing the annotationĪnd then place your meta-annotation on a class that already has an explicit Should this be an error? Should both annotations be applied? Does one take Obtaining the n th component from a record Obtaining the number of components in a record Obtaining a map of the record component values
Obtaining a list of the record component values Differences with Sealed annotation (incubating) Handling duplicate annotations in meta-annotations Split property definition with an explicit backing field.
0 kommentar(er)
