-
TLDR; JSpecify might need more `java.lang.annotation.Target`s then just `TYPE_USE` for compatibility or some documented work around for annotation processors.
While playing with JSpecify and Eclips…
-
Allowing for annotation processors in the vendordep JSON in addition to normal Java dependencies would make it easier to install/update libraries that rely on them. Currently, the best solution is to …
-
```
It would be nice to have annotation processors generate javadoc explaining the
various methods and linking back to the class that generated them.
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com b…
-
```
It would be nice to have annotation processors generate javadoc explaining the
various methods and linking back to the class that generated them.
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com b…
-
```
It would be nice to have annotation processors generate javadoc explaining the
various methods and linking back to the class that generated them.
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com b…
-
```
It would be nice if I could pass any annotation to the generated classes and to
it's members. I think it's usefull if you would like to validate actions with
JSR-303 annotations or if you're wor…
-
```
It would be nice if I could pass any annotation to the generated classes and to
it's members. I think it's usefull if you would like to validate actions with
JSR-303 annotations or if you're wor…
-
Right now, all dependencies are downloaded into `@maven` workspace. This is great, until we need to include an annotation processor as a `java_plugin`: then we need to break out of the workspace and d…
-
For Kotlin projects, Dagger currently makes use of KAPT. This is generally quite slow since it requires generating Java stubs before the annotation processing step.
[KSP](https://github.com/google/…
-
```
It would be nice to have annotation processors generate javadoc explaining the
various methods and linking back to the class that generated them.
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com b…