Skip to content

Conversation

liampace
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is related to Issue #3936.

Currently the @Jacksonized annotation mistakenly applies @JsonProperty to transient fields. The new behavior has @Jacksonized explicitly apply @JsonIgnore to all transient fields.

For example the following sample code:

@Jacksonized
@Accessors(fluent = true)
public class Foo {
    String foo;
    transient String transientFoo;
}

would be equivalent to:

public final class Foo {
    @JsonProperty("foo")
    private final String foo;
    @JsonIgnore
    private final transient String transientFoo;
    ...
}

@liampace
Copy link
Contributor Author

The test for this specific bug-fix seems to be passing however the CI test checks are failing due to the deprecation of AccessLevel.MODULE:

Unexpected message: 8 WARNING The field AccessLevel.MODULE is deprecated

And that one of the tests LoggerJbossLogAccess.java are misspelled:

Missing / empty expected file: LoggerJbossLogAccess.java

I'll work on a PR to fix this.

@liampace liampace marked this pull request as draft September 18, 2025 16:54
@rzwitserloot
Copy link
Collaborator

It sounds like a good idea to me, but as neither I nor Roel are all that familiar with Jackson, we'd defer to @janrieke 's wisdom.

The failures of the test actions appear to be down to something wonky with how @liampace 's at this point integrated into master branch is being applied here. A rebase / merge might fix it.

@liampace
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rzwitserloot
I've created a PR (#3948) that addresses the CI's failing tests. Once that PR is approved, I can update this PR and mark it ready for review.

@liampace liampace marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2025 17:08
@liampace
Copy link
Contributor Author

liampace commented Sep 25, 2025

After the successful merging of PR #3948, this feature is now ready to be reviewed

Copy link
Contributor

@janrieke janrieke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just i small suggestion for test coverage improvement.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants