Trying to make sure I understand.. so the report is just wrong? Or is
there some difference in your model versus theirs?
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:22 PM andrea boriero wrote:
> yes also for the MappedSuperclass
>
> from:
>
> @MappedSuperclass
> public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity {
>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:15 AM Sanne Grinovero
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 01:44, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> >
> > I disagree that logging a single message is a better solution because
> that probably ends up wrapping multiple lines, just as your sample happened
> to do in the email. IMO
Yes, we're doing something like that in MapStruct, too:
https://github.com/mapstruct/mapstruct/blob/master/processor/src/main/java/org/mapstruct/ap/MappingProcessor.java#L114
There we need to wait with code generation for processed classes until
their hierarchy has stabilized (other APs may
Hm, seems like the "AP delayed generation" approach is a possibility. From
a quick search:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41874462/java-annotation-process-not-yet-generated-elements
This is one of the cases (there are others) where we do not completely
follow the JPA spec.
TBH I'm not really sure how we would address this in an annotation
processor, though granted my knowledge of those APIs is limited. But as I
understand it we have to generate the metamodel class as we
The generated model of the MappedSuperclass?
Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero
wrote:
> I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not defined
> in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the
I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not defined
in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the subclasses extending
it.
I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify any @Id
annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 01:44, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
> I disagree that logging a single message is a better solution because that
> probably ends up wrapping multiple lines, just as your sample happened to do
> in the email. IMO that is actually more difficult to read.
Ok keep it in one line
