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

Selma raises mapping field error for static methods #89

Closed
facboy opened this Issue Apr 18, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@facboy

facboy commented Apr 18, 2016

The mapping code seems to be picking up static methods on the bean class (eg getX, isY) and complaining that they are not mapped. This seems like it should be a bug?

@slemesle slemesle added the bug label Apr 18, 2016

@slemesle slemesle added this to the 0.15 milestone Apr 18, 2016

@slemesle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@slemesle

slemesle Apr 18, 2016

yes it looks like a bug. We should definitely filter static methods in the BeanWrapper#buildFieldGraph() method.

slemesle commented Apr 18, 2016

yes it looks like a bug. We should definitely filter static methods in the BeanWrapper#buildFieldGraph() method.

@slemesle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@slemesle

slemesle Apr 18, 2016

I've commited a fix for this, it should be available in nightly build shortly.

slemesle commented Apr 18, 2016

I've commited a fix for this, it should be available in nightly build shortly.

@facboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@facboy

facboy Jun 7, 2016

I'm not sure the fix is entirely right, maybe I'm thinking unclearly but won't it only exclude methods that are both static and abstract, not either/or?

facboy commented Jun 7, 2016

I'm not sure the fix is entirely right, maybe I'm thinking unclearly but won't it only exclude methods that are both static and abstract, not either/or?

@slemesle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@slemesle

slemesle Jul 15, 2016

Good point for you @facboy thanks.
This should be good now.

slemesle commented Jul 15, 2016

Good point for you @facboy thanks.
This should be good now.

@slemesle slemesle closed this Jul 29, 2016

@facboy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@facboy

facboy Sep 6, 2016

actually I missed a problem, why are we excluding abstract methods? this breaks my code now as some of my source beans have abstract methods that are implemented in a sub-class (eg google autovalue)

facboy commented Sep 6, 2016

actually I missed a problem, why are we excluding abstract methods? this breaks my code now as some of my source beans have abstract methods that are implemented in a sub-class (eg google autovalue)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment