Can't override static builder for the builder-in-disguise pattern

[nezda]

Can't override static builder for the builder-in-disguise pattern (from #234 (comment) (and #432 (comment))) which is referenced in the docs

[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.11.0:compile (default-compile) on project value-fixture: Compilation failure
[ERROR] /Users/nezda/code/immutables/value-fixture/target/generated-sources/annotations/org/immutables/fixture/modifiable/ImmutableBuilderInDisguise.java:[156,51] error: builder() in ImmutableBuilderInDisguise cannot hide builder() in BuilderInDisguise
[ERROR] return type Builder is not compatible with BuilderInDisguiseBuilder

Demonstrated in PR #1466

[elucash]

I may not understand it well, I'll reread tomorrow. But from the first impression.
One static method cannot hide another if return type differs (iirc) [given that same signature - no params]. In order to un-clash those signatures something have to be done.

• Rename default builder method (@Style.builder = "anotherBuilder" | "new" )
• Disable standard builder (@Value.Immutable(builder = false), might require @Style.allParameters
• or smth like that...

[nezda]

You've got it exactly right @elucash . I tried adding @Value.Immutable(builder = false) but as you said, probably requires @Style.allParameters as it failed to compile with error below. If I'm interpreting the builder-in-disguise recipe correctly, this is sort of a bug / unanticipated? Not being able to use the name builder hobbles the disguise a little bit depending on the name you pick (for my actual use case I called it modifiableBuilder in the abstract class. Thinking about it more, renaming the immutable builder with something like @Style.builder = "immutableBuilder" seems better and works fine. Maybe the documentation for this feature should suggest this?

[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.11.0:compile (default-compile) on project value-fixture: Compilation failure
[ERROR] /Users/nezda/code/immutables/value-fixture/src/org/immutables/fixture/modifiable/BuilderInDisguise.java:[19,25] error: Attribute 'name' is mandatory and should be a constructor @Value.Parameter when builder is disabled or there are other constructor parameters

[elucash]

Yes, I would say the clash is a natural and unanticipated consequence. I dunno, maybe adding some validation or documentation might help, but just not enough time/resources/motivation to polish these rarely used areas. These renamings, as they are, exist as a sharp tool. If I [ever] will rewrite immutables I would, probably, construct and validate generation model and validate it thoroughly (extensibility -> plugins -> need to detect / resolve conflicts). Any PRs for javadocs, or if we just copy paste some comments into builder-in-disguise ticket – always welcome