binding order matters when requireExplicitBindings is on #700

gissuebot · 2014-07-07T19:09:35Z

From pmoor@google.com on April 11, 2012 19:18:52

See the attached test case, it fails with

Explicit bindings are required and com.google.apps.framework.producers.GuicePocTest$A is not explicitly bound.
  while locating com.google.apps.framework.producers.GuicePocTest$A
    for parameter 0 at com.google.apps.framework.producers.GuicePocTest$BImpl.<init>(GuicePocTest.java:17)
  at com.google.apps.framework.producers.GuicePocTest$1.configure(GuicePocTest.java:25)

When reversing the binding order (first A, then B), it passes.

Attachment: gist
GuicePocTest.java

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=700

Ensure the order of calls to Binder.bind(...) in combination with @ does not affect whether classes are bound explicitly or with jIT binding. Signed-off-by: Harald Fassler <harald.fassler+9974@gmail.com>

@nineninesevenfour

…tedBy. Instead, defer it like a normal bind(X.class).to(Y.class) does. This ensures that later bindings of Y are used. Much thanks goes to @nineninesevenfour for their investigation (in #1650), which made fixing this much easier. Fixes #700 and fixes #1650. PiperOrigin-RevId: 527044205

copybara-service bot mentioned this issue Apr 25, 2023

Don't immediately lookup the linked binding associated with @ImplementedBy. Instead, defer it like a normal bind(X.class).to(Y.class) does. This ensures that later bindings of Y are used. #1709

Closed

copybara-service bot closed this as completed in 8edbe68 Apr 25, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

binding order matters when requireExplicitBindings is on #700

binding order matters when requireExplicitBindings is on #700

gissuebot commented Jul 7, 2014

binding order matters when requireExplicitBindings is on #700

binding order matters when requireExplicitBindings is on #700

Comments

gissuebot commented Jul 7, 2014