Jooq: The JPA Column annotation should not be mandatory

[lukaseder]

Currently, jOOQ's DefaultRecordMapper either applies mapping by convention _OR_ via JPA @Column annotations. But in JPA, the @Column annotation is not mandatory on entities. If absent, default behaviour applies. jOOQ should also implement this behaviour.

---

See also:

• http://www.jooq.org/doc/latest/manual/sql-execution/fetching/pojos/#comment-2277831834
• #4263
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59514118/map-table-record-into-jpa-entity

[kag0]

Related to this, entity fields which are marked with @Column but do not have the name defined on the annotation are ignored. Not sure if this is intended behavior or not.

Current code (Tools.getAnnotatedMembers) has

if (namesMatch(name, column.name())) { // if the column annotation name field matches the reflected field name
    result.add(accessible(member));
}

[lukaseder]

Thanks for the feedback, @kag0. This is not the intended behaviour. Even if jOOQ doesn't really implement JPA, it should adhere to the JPA spec where JPA annotations are interpreted.

[knutwannheden]

Further, the DefaultRecordMapper should probably skip any members annotated with JPA's @Transient annotation.

[lukaseder]

Further, the DefaultRecordMapper should probably skip any members annotated with JPA's @Transient annotation.

Can you please create a separate issue?

[knutwannheden]

Can you please create a separate issue?

Done.