Make multiple @Spec checks

[enimaloc]

Currently, only the first annotation is checked, this does not allow multiple conditions to be checked or the need to create a custom specification for each condition:

public class Configuration {
    @Path("server.port") 
    @SpecIntInRange(min = 1, max = 65535) 
    @SpecValidator(PortValidator.class) // Not possible 
    int serverPort = 25566;

    @Override
    public String toString() { 
        return "Configuration{serverPort=" + serverPort + '}';
    }

   public static class PortValidator implements Predicate<Object> { 
       @Override public boolean test(Object o) { 
           return o instanceof Integer i && i != 25565; 
       }
    }
}

We need to do this instead:

public class Configuration {
    @Path("server.port")
    @SpecValidator(PortValidator.class)
    int serverPort = 25566;

    @Override
    public String toString() {
        return "Configuration{serverPort=" + serverPort + '}';
    }

    public static class PortValidator implements Predicate<Object> {
        @Override public boolean test(Object o) {
            return o instanceof Integer i && i != 25565 && i >= 1 && i <= 65535;
        }
    } 
}

Which prevents us from doing multiple conditions without recreating a Predicate, what I'm proposing is to be able to do such a thing:

public class Configuration {
    @Path("server.port")
    @SpecIntInRange(min = 1, max = 65535)
    @SpecValidator(PortValidator.class)
    @SpecValidator(NotTenValidator.class)
    int serverPort = 25566;

    @Override public String toString() {
        return "Configuration{serverPort=" + serverPort + '}';
    }

    public static class PortValidator implements Predicate<Object> {
        @Override 
        public boolean test(Object o) { 
            return o instanceof Integer i && i != 25565 && i >= 1 && i <= 65535;
        }
    }

    public static class NotTenValidator implements Predicate<Object> {
        @Override
        public boolean test(Object o) {
            return o instanceof Integer i && i != 10;
        }
    }
}

One solution to this issue is to remove the return; at the various checks made by the program.

[TheElectronWill]

Yes that's an interesting feature. Thanks for the ticket!