Only delete getters that have the canonical form

[rillig]

#688

This is just a proof of concept, to get some early feedback.

Of course the same work would have to be done for the setters as well.

And maybe for the equals and hashCode methods. It might get trickier to test whether these are of the few established standard forms, as produced by Eclipse, IntelliJ and a few other IDEs.

My main focus are the getters and setters for now since manually checking for typos in that code is absolutely boring and error-prone.

While testing I noticed that Lombok will add a getter for fieldWithoutGetter. This may be intentional or not.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #726 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #726      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage      69.7%   69.69%   -0.02%     
  Complexity     1778     1778              
============================================
  Files           200      200              
  Lines          6173     6173              
  Branches       1266     1266              
============================================
- Hits           4303     4302       -1     
- Misses         1261     1262       +1     
  Partials        609      609

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...llij/plugin/action/lombok/LombokGetterHandler.java	100% <100%> (+12.5%)	4 <0> (+1)	⬆️
.../intellij/plugin/psi/LombokLightMethodBuilder.java	42.37% <0%> (-1.7%)	26% <0%> (-1%)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0b63c99...1389451. Read the comment docs.

[rillig]

@mplushnikov Do you have an opinion on the code I have written? If you like it, I would implement similar code and tests for the setters as well.

[mplushnikov]

Hello @rillig

thank you very much for your contribution. I'll look on your PR next days!

Please add yourself to contributors list in readme.md file, we forget to do it previously.

[mplushnikov]

Hello @rillig !
Sorry for my very late answer. I looked now on your 'proof of concept' and it looks good!
We can try to change implementation this way, it should work for @getter and @Setter I think. Maybe it is necessary to add some checks/tests for inheritance, to check field and method are from same class for example. I think your current implementation with findGetterForField looks into super classes too.

'Getter'-generation for fieldWithoutGetter field is not intentional of course. Just didn't see this bug before. It's maybe not very critical, and is just ignoring by people. Correct implementation should add @getter(AccessLevel.NONE) to it i think.