Repository navigation
WW-4323 Pin that ParameterNameAware cannot accept an excluded name - #2049
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…uded name ParameterNameAware narrows what the interceptor accepts; it never overrides the global name checks. The existing testParameterNameAware does not tell the two semantics apart because its action rejects every extra key itself. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
lukaszlenart
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 22, 2026 10:09
|
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Relates to WW-4323 (closed as Won't Fix)
Summary
ParametersInterceptor#isAcceptableParametersets a parameter only when both the global name checks andParameterNameAware#acceptableParameterNameaccept it. This has been the rule since 2.3.16.1 (4e98aaaa1, WW-4109 / WW-4154). WW-4323 asked to go back to the old "either check" behaviour, and that request was declined.The existing
testParameterNameAwaredoesn't distinguish the two behaviours, because its action already rejects every extra key itself. The new test uses an action that accepts every name plus an excludedblockedKey, and asserts that onlyallowedKeygets bound.Test plan
mvn test -DskipAssembly -pl core -Dtest='ParametersInterceptorTest#testParameterNameAware*'runs 2 tests, both passexpected:<{allowedKey=allowedValue}> but was:<{allowedKey=allowedValue, blockedKey=blockedValue}>🤖 Generated with Claude Code