Conversation
KostyaSha
force-pushed
the
pr/372
branch
2 times, most recently
from
216c487 to
fbea352
Compare
|
LGTM 👍 Really appreciate yor work. However, do you really want to investigate the remote API version for each single property? This seems to be really much effort. For me personally this effort would be to much because of my limited time resources. |
|
@marcuslinke it very convenient when implementing something to rely on features. I will try sync existed and we should require javadocs for new PRs imho. Plus i usually digging into depth when using tools :D |
|
Let's experiment, i will keep docs under fields and link from getters. Should be easy move them later. |
KostyaSha
force-pushed
the
pr/372
branch
4 times, most recently
from
5f5f652 to
ba0255c
Compare
- add missing fields 1.22 - replace isXX to getXX for objects - annotated everything
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@marcuslinke please check, btw why nested classes are used? Can they be extracted into model objects?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nesting classes makes sense when the inner class is used only in the context of the surrounding class and not anywhere else. Beside this it also documents the classes relationship in my oppinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But you will have only field with cleaner class instead.
|
No objections - merging. |
|
@KostyaSha Please add to CHANGELOG |
|
@marcuslinke i will sync milestone to changelog later |
|
👍 Thanks! |
3 participants
More reworked #372
@marcuslinke for review
@marcuslinke we should define what to do with javadocs, annotating only field sounds logical, but getter/setter should also provide docs. Didn't found way inherit field javadoc to methods.
Probably it makes sense annotate field and provide link to it from getter WDYT?