Sébastien Deleuze

Yes, I would be in favor of that.

I have began to document the configuration customizations required to avoid early DB interactions cc @christophstrobl: - [data-jpa](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-lifecycle-smoke-tests/tree/main/data/data-jpa) - [data-jdbc](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-lifecycle-smoke-tests/tree/main/data/data-jdbc) - [data-r2dbc](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-lifecycle-smoke-tests/tree/main/data/data-r2dbc) - [data-mongodb](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-lifecycle-smoke-tests/tree/main/data/data-mongodb) - [data-mongodb-reactive](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-lifecycle-smoke-tests/tree/main/data/data-mongodb-reactive) - [data-redis](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-lifecycle-smoke-tests/tree/main/data/data-redis) - [batch](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-lifecycle-smoke-tests/tree/main/batch/batch)...

I can reproduce, but: - Looks like a Spring Boot issue - May be Kotlin specific, can't reproduce with Java records - The binding is likely incorrect and should be...

See the related stacktrace with the refined `application.yml` [here](https://gist.github.com/sdeleuze/e6a412e71d929853c225b235886981fa).

After a deeper look, it looks like a GraalVM bug to me. I am not sure `println(jakarta.validation.constraints.Pattern.Flag::class)` is supposed to change something from a GraalVM reflection POV, but adding the...

@snicoll @bclozel @mhalbritter @wilkinsona It looks like we have been going full circle on this one. GraalVM confirmed this need to be fixed on Spring side, and after a another...

I will discuss that with the Framework team and let you know if the rest of the team is ok with that.

We have discussed this topic in this week Spring Framework team meeting, the follow-up discussion is still ongoing. I will post an update here as soon as we have reached...

As mentioned in [spring-framework#30278](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/issues/30278#issuecomment-1587348025): > We are going to change, as of Spring Framework 6.1, the order of `RouterFunctionMapping` defined in `WebMvcConfigurationSupport` from `3` to `-1` in order to achieve...

Yeah, I reached the same conclusion. Maybe we could mark this issue as blocked and we raise a related issue or PR on Logback side to discuss the possible options?