-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
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
(mrbean) Problem with Optional<T>
, AtomicReference<T>
valued properties
#8
Comments
What happens with the test? Mr Bean should not have to be involved with |
Good morning and thanks for your support! Like I wrote, the test throws an GenericSignatureFormatError. Here the complete stacktrace:
I debugged a little bit and the method in question is the generated |
@tvk Hmmh. No, you are right, it does look like Mr Bean somehow generated invalid type declaration. The main reason I am hoping to avoid using So: if it was possible to create a minimal test case that neither relies on Spring classes nor As to root cause, I guess there are two main possibilities: either version of One other things: which version are you using? 2.7 had significant changes in type handling, which could be relevant here, depending on version. |
I'm currently working with version 2.7.2. I also tried version 2.6.5 but there was no difference. I just tried to replace the Optional by an AtomicReference (allthough this would not be a solution for me) and removed the JDK8Module, but surprisingly I got the same exception. Here my updated testcase:
.. still throws an |
@tvk thank you for verifying this. I was actually expecting it to fail the same way, as that makes sense to me: in a way there is nothing particular special (from Jackson perspective) about |
Yes, I can reproduce this with |
Ah. The problem is indeed with construction of generic type; but the minor bug is in |
Optional<T>
, AtomicReference<T>
valued properties
Ok: turns out the problem was with newly (in 2.6) added |
Hello,
I'd really like to use your mrbean module, but it does not seem to support java 8 optionals. Is this correct? Do you have planned adding support for this?
I've created a small testcase and that does not seem to work. It throws an GenericSignatureFormatError...
`
`
Best regards,
Thomas
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: