Allow primitive fields to have @Required annotation

[zaki50]

I got a request from a user.

I think that just ignoring @Required annotation is fine if the field has primitive type.
What do you think? @realm/java

[beeender]

I think so ... do we throw in current release?

[Zhuinden]

I don't see the purpose of it - it's implicitly @Required if it's long instead of Long.

[cmelchior]

What @Zhuinden said. What would the use case be for wanting this? That said, allowing it is probably not harmful so 🤷‍♂️

[zaki50]

I heard the following case.

At first, they defined a field @Required Long id; in a model class .
Then they made a refactoring that contains a change that field to @Required long id; and introduced Dagger.

After that, build failure happened with bunch of Dagger errors.
I guess errors contained Realm's one, but they couldn't find it since they didn't think
that primitive's having @Required is prohibited (I also felt it natural that primitive field is Required).

I didn't have the reason why we didn't accept for primitive fields to have @Required.

What do you think?

[cmelchior]

I would say we accept pull requests :) TBH I don't think it is something we should prioritize.

[swayamraina]

I would love to contribute. Is this still valid?

[Zhuinden]

I think now that both Int? and Int describe this case in Kotlin, and Integer/int in Java