Replies: 1 comment
|
This looks like a false positive in the new validation, although it will need to be addressed before the warning becomes an error. The validator currently takes the ClassElement annotation = processor.get("A");
AnnotationValue<Executable> executable =
annotation.getAnnotation(Executable.class);See Your
A local bridge annotation should avoid the warning without adding Micronaut to JobRunr's core annotation: @Target(ElementType.METHOD)
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Executable(processOnStartup = true)
@interface MicronautRecurring {
}The typed mapper can return both values: return List.of(
annotation,
AnnotationValue.builder(MicronautRecurring.class).build()
);and the processor can use: ExecutableMethodProcessor<MicronautRecurring>Keeping the original Longer term, I think this is worth reporting in Micronaut: the validation should either account for The relevant Micronaut 5 migration note is here. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
While upgrading JobRunr's Micronaut Integration to Micronaut 5, I get the following warning:
Our use case include a
Recurringannotation that's imported from a non Micronaut project, so we use Micronaut'sTypedAnnotationMapperto map it to an annotation with theprocessOnStartup = trueflag.For the detailed implementation:
Do we need to change our approach? Any suggestions? Or is this a false positive?
Thanks for the help!
All reactions