Jordan Zimmerman
Jordan Zimmerman
I'll try to get to it when I can.
Is this fixed by https://github.com/Randgalt/record-builder/pull/228?
If the arguments/parameters are required, we should not include the no-arg `builder()`. Or, there should be some kind of validation elsewhere. tbh - I'm not sure I'm in favor of...
This will get very complex quickly. RecordBuilder has so many combinations of options, etc. For example, try this: ``` @RecordBuilderFull public record RequiredComponents2(@NotNull @RecordBuilder.Required String b) { } ``` The...
Thanks for the PR - I'll look at this soon.
My initial reaction is that RecordBuilder is getting too many options. We've already had some incompatible ones. We may need to re-think the customization scheme.
This is a duplicate of https://github.com/Randgalt/record-builder/issues/129 I believe. We don't have a good solution yet. I had a PR but it was not acceptable by the community. I didn't write...
Right - the `jakarta` rename mess. We should update for that and filter both. I'd appreciate a PR with this change.
The final stage has two methods, `build()` which builds an instance and `builder()` which returns a Record Builder builder. I would think that this builder accomplishes what you want right?
> fill the optional ones only when needed. It depends what you mean by `optional`. Record-Builder supports actually `Optional` fields, `null`able fields, etc. If we add `builder()` to each stage...