Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 9, 2022. It is now read-only.

Support for manual implementation of initializer #2

Closed
dsyer opened this issue Dec 17, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

Support for manual implementation of initializer #2

dsyer opened this issue Dec 17, 2018 · 5 comments
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed
Milestone
0.1.0

Comments

@dsyer
Copy link
Contributor

dsyer commented Dec 17, 2018

When a @Configuration class already has an initializer (where it matches the naming convention), we should back off and not generate one. There is a failing test in modules/fails.
@dsyer dsyer added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Dec 17, 2018
@dsyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyer commented Aug 5, 2020

This should be easy now that was have the application classpath available to the code generation tools.

@dsyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyer commented Aug 5, 2020

Done: 19e6084

@dsyer dsyer closed this as completed Aug 5, 2020
@dsyer dsyer mentioned this issue Aug 6, 2020
Closed
@dsyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyer commented Aug 10, 2020

This didn't work out. I had to revert.

@dsyer dsyer reopened this Aug 10, 2020
@dsyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyer commented Aug 11, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Tried a different approach: 09bc869. We still need a test.

@dsyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyer commented Aug 11, 2020

Test: 62ab18f

@dsyer dsyer closed this as completed Aug 11, 2020
@dsyer dsyer added this to the 0.0.1 milestone Aug 24, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed
Milestone
0.1.0
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@dsyer