Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

In-compatible type exception when build method return super type #763

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 21, 2015

Conversation

agavrilov76
Copy link
Contributor

Fix issue #761

@cowtowncoder
Copy link
Member

Thanks! Sounds correct to me -- I'll re-read the code later today, but I assume you are absolutely correct here. So after reading, I'd be happy to merge this patch and backport in 2.5.

Just one practicality first: if we haven't yet asked for the Contributor License Agreement (CLA):

https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson/blob/master/contributor-agreement.pdf

we would need a copy (print, fill-in & sign, scan, email to info at fasterxml dot com). One copy is needed and then we can accept all patches for all Jackson projects. Apologies for this, but it is one part of process we need, to keep corporate users (or more like their legal depts :) ) happy.

Thank you again for the contribution!

@agavrilov76
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've sent the signed contributor agreement to 'info'.

@cowtowncoder
Copy link
Member

Ok, I think this is close to correct. I do think that check has to be actually both ways, since it should be legal for builder to also specify it builds a more specific type (original test), as well as less specific (code after change). I'll modify it after merging to ensure both are legal.

Thank you again!

cowtowncoder added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2015
In-compatible type exception when build method return super type
@cowtowncoder cowtowncoder merged commit 5a73da8 into FasterXML:master Apr 21, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants