Parameters for annotation processors are disabled and undocumented

[dreiss]

android_library and java_library support the arguments "annotation_processors", "annotation_processor_deps", "annotation_processor_params", and "annotation_processor_only". Currently these are undocumented.

[dreiss]

Actually, it looks like this feature is excluded from the open-source version of Buck because we weren't ready to finalize the API. I'll see if we're ready now.

[rbraunstein]

Thanks, I would suggest that having to list the annotation processors is a pain for users.

There were actually 3 different ones in the problem I was trying to track down.
Ideally there would be an option to do what javac does and just use the ones it finds on the classpath.
In general annotation processors are "magic" and people don't have to configure their build systems to know about them.

[dreiss]

Unfortunately, using the processorpath option disables that behavior. I don't think it would be safe to put the AbiProcessor on the classpath during compilation.

This is probably one of the issues that made the original authors (my co-workers) think that it wasn't ready for widespread use.

[leiyangyou]

Could we not expose a mean to add additional processorpath entries?

[tageorgiou]

Are we not ready to expose annotation_processors, etc?

[Coneko]

These are now available:

https://github.com/facebook/buck/blob/master/src/com/facebook/buck/jvm/java/JavaLibraryDescription.java#L329

They're still undocumented though.

[ghost]

Thank you for reporting this issue and appreciate your patience. We've notified the core team for an update on this issue. We're looking for a response within the next 30 days or the issue may be closed.

[davido]

java.safe_annotation_processors isn't documented either.

What I wonder: FB does use a code review system: (phabricator?) internally? At least we see, "Reviewed By:" footer in commit messages.

So how comes that those lines: https://github.com/facebook/buck/blame/master/src/com/facebook/buck/jvm/java/JavaBuckConfig.java#L81-L83 added by this commit: 97a8dc0 missing documentation bits? Was that intended not to be documented? In which case i would expect that commit message states that this config options intentionally not documented.

[dreiss]

We do use code review. We do frequently leave options undocumented if we think they aren't ready for public consumption. You're right that it would probably be a good idea to state that explicitly in the commit messages.

[rahul-a]

Any update around annotation processing feature being available in open source version? Can't get this to work

[Coneko]

cc @jkeljo

[v-jizhang]

Hi, this issue is closed because it has not been updated for over 3 years. Thanks