Stephan Schroevers

> not sure what Refaster would do here, as the third parameter isn't referenced in the after template That's okay; it works. Error Prone Support has a Refaster test framework...

>I tested your templates and it works beautifully. :tada: > I was a bit surprised that Refaster apparently only applies the rules one at the time. Indeed, this is comparatively...

Rebased and resolved conflicts.

Wow... I didn't even know this was supported. :exploding_head: It _might_ be possible to resolve the conflicting symbol and check whether it'd be ambiguous. But that does sound like the...

Tnx for the ping on this one. Can't say exactly when I'll have time for a closer look, but I'll try to bump it on the TODO list :+1:

(Reopening because I see that GitHub closed this PR base on imperfect heuritics. That said, this isn't at the top of my TODO list at the moment.)

Unfortunately this won't work without further changes; see #195. I have yet to find time for a closer look. Perhaps you're up for that, @vladimirconev?

Based on past activity: @knifeofdreams or @andreasfolkesson are you okay with raising the build baseline to JDK 17 (required by google/google-java-format#1159), without modifying the build to cover that one JDK...

As suggested [here](https://github.com/PicnicSupermarket/error-prone-support/pull/1608#discussion_r2008789768) by @msridhar, I'm sharing a test case that _may_ be relevant to this issue: ```java import static com.google.common.collect.ImmutableTable.toImmutableTable; import com.google.common.collect.ImmutableTable; import com.google.common.collect.Table; import com.google.common.collect.Tables; import java.util.stream.Stream; final...

I just filed #4814 to update the documentation for compatibility with Error Prone 2.36.0 and JDK 17/21. Let me know if things work for you with those instructions. I'll also...