Jay Katariya

Hi @vy and @ppkarwasz, If this issue has not been picked up yet, can I contribute to this, do I have to be assigned to this issue or I can...

Hi @ppkarwasz , re: to modify the annotation processor in 2.x to fail if a plugin builder attribute does not have a public setter (or at least a wither). I...

> Note: If you never wrote an annotation processor, its API has a steep learning curve, but the feature only requires a small part of this API: This is true,...

So my original idea was something of this sorts, This would be during the build of the field, which would be **runtime** In Plugin Builder.java ``` for (final ConstraintValidator validator...

Hi @ppkarwasz Made some good progress but needed your input on something: I am not sure if we should add type checking here: ``` if (methodName.startsWith("set") && methodElement.getParameters().size() == 1)...

Hi @ppkarwasz > Note: I noticed that some of our builders have complex conventions for the name of the setter: the setter for an isUnicode field should be called setUnicode...

> you could just deprecate the old signatures and add new ones for "with***"? the method lookup above would need to prefer the non-deprecated variants though. I am sorry, got...

>I would just annotate those three methods with a custom @SuppressWarnings and make the annotation processor ignore them. Okay sounds good let me do that then! I will add tests...

Hi @ppkarwasz , seems like the @SuppressWarnings annotation won't work, what do you recommend among these: >1.Add a configuration option to the processor to change the behavior for mismatched return...

@ppkarwasz >I would just annotate those three methods with a custom @SuppressWarnings and make the annotation processor ignore them. I am sorry for the confusion are you asking to add...