Try fixing #4302 different way #4314
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Ugh. While fixing the newish issue, this would break "Enum as POJO" handling where we DO want renaming to occur... On plus side there's a test (now failing). On down side, it gets tricky. Probably cannot avoid renaming handling after all. |
|
/cc @JooHyukKim |
|
I'll also see if #4313 makes sense: I am not convinced but will keep on looking when I have time. |
|
@JooHyukKim I think this fundamentally stems from that one change to Enum handling where Enum value constants, STATIC fields are included along with "regular" ones. I can possibly work around that issue in |
|
@JooHyukKim I think this works, will merge. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ok, the initial #4302 fix is incorrect in that it tries to change how Enum-valued properties are (not to be) renamed: what is needed is fields of Enum values themselves. This PR adds test to catch the issue with original approach and tries different fix.
I'm also getting bit nervous on merging this in 2.16, however, the original issue is nasty enough that this is probably required.