Conversation
…one instance is down
…refactor-secret-ref-and-cluster-reference-to-resource-ref # Conflicts: # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/core/ClusterReference.java # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/core/SecretRef.java # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/core/schema_customizer/HostCustomizer.java # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/crd/clusterconnection/ClusterConnectionSpec.java
…hat are not annotated with JSpecify annotations
…ef' into move-jspecify-annotations-closest-to-the-target
…refactor-secret-ref-and-cluster-reference-to-resource-ref # Conflicts: # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/core/ClusterReference.java # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/core/SecretRef.java
…ef' into move-jspecify-annotations-closest-to-the-target # Conflicts: # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/core/ResourceRef.java
Base automatically changed from
refactor-secret-ref-and-cluster-reference-to-resource-ref
to
main
February 26, 2026 14:06
# Conflicts: # docs/cluster-connection.md # docs/database.md # docs/default-privilege.md # docs/grant.md # docs/role.md # docs/schema.md # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/core/ResourceRef.java # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/crd/clusterconnection/ClusterConnectionSpec.java # operator/src/main/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/crd/role/RoleSpec.java # operator/src/test/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/_support/testdata/persisted/creator/ClusterConnectionCreate.java # operator/src/test/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/_support/testdata/persisted/creator/RoleCreate.java # operator/src/test/java/it/aboutbits/postgresql/_support/testdata/persisted/creator/SecretRefCreate.java
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In another project, we agreed to have the JSpecify annotations always closest to their targets.
As the JSpecify annotations
@NonNulland@NullableareTYPE_USEonly annotations (Lombok@NonNullalso allowsFIELD,LOCAL_VARIABLE, and more types), I think it also makes sense to move this next to the return type, as well as special cases, like we already need to do for example in cases like inner classes (RoleSpec.@Nullable Flags), where this is strictly required.I also enabled
RequireExplicitNullMarking, which immediately detected that classBlankSourcewas not annotated with@NullMarkedor@NullUnmarked.https://jspecify.dev/docs/user-guide/#type-use-annotation-syntax
