Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make @ConditionalOnProperty @Repeatable #2541

Open
chrylis opened this issue Feb 24, 2015 · 11 comments
Open

Make @ConditionalOnProperty @Repeatable #2541

chrylis opened this issue Feb 24, 2015 · 11 comments
Labels
status: blocked An issue that's blocked on an external project change type: enhancement A general enhancement

Comments

@chrylis
Copy link
Contributor

chrylis commented Feb 24, 2015

I have a class that requires a couple of configuration properties to be set in order to instantiate a service, and also an enabled flag to turn off that autoconfig. While I'd like a simpler setup (#2312), in the meantime I'm trying to use @ConditionalOnProperty to check whether the properties are available. Since enabled defaults to true, I want it to matchIfMissing, but obviously not the other actual configuration properties.

However, matchIfMissing (and havingValue) apply to all of the properties in the annotation. I would like to be able to repeat the annotation to specify multiple property names that have different presence/value matching parameters.

@philwebb
Copy link
Member

Have you seen AnyNestedCondition? It's obviously not as nice as @Repeatable, but it's at least there for 1.2.

@philwebb philwebb added the type: enhancement A general enhancement label Feb 24, 2015
@chrylis
Copy link
Contributor Author

chrylis commented Feb 24, 2015

In this case, I'd need an AllNestedCondition.

@philwebb
Copy link
Member

Ahh OK. Good point. We do have a PR for that but it won't be looked at until 1.3 (see #2400). I like the repeatable idea as well.

@philwebb philwebb added this to the 1.3.0 milestone Feb 24, 2015
@benneq
Copy link

benneq commented Feb 24, 2015

Should this be a logical OR or an AND?

@philwebb
Copy link
Member

@benneq My take is that it should be a logical and so that it works in the same way as @Conditional.value()

@philwebb philwebb modified the milestones: 1.4.0, 1.3.0.RC1 Jul 10, 2015
@philwebb philwebb removed this from the 1.4.0 milestone Jan 7, 2016
@derTobsch
Copy link

It would be nice if this feature would come soon. It is much more easier to use multiple @ConditionalOnProperty

@philwebb philwebb added the status: ideal-for-contribution An issue that a contributor can help us with label Apr 11, 2016
@caneraydinbey
Copy link

+1

@sta-szek
Copy link

vote vote +1

@Hronom
Copy link
Contributor

Hronom commented Sep 8, 2017

obviously +1

@philwebb philwebb added this to the Backlog milestone Mar 22, 2018
@philwebb philwebb removed status: ideal-for-contribution An issue that a contributor can help us with status: waiting-for-votes labels Mar 22, 2018
@snicoll snicoll self-assigned this Aug 22, 2018
@snicoll
Copy link
Member

snicoll commented Aug 23, 2018

This requires a core framework change that still needs to be discussed. I've raised SPR-17207.

@gorodum
Copy link

gorodum commented Apr 6, 2020

+1

@philwebb philwebb added the status: blocked An issue that's blocked on an external project change label Apr 16, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status: blocked An issue that's blocked on an external project change type: enhancement A general enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants