Dedicated chapter about code generation configuration #1850
Conversation
| @@ -63,3 +63,151 @@ properties: | |||
| :::warning SAP Business Application Studio | |||
| If you develop your application in SAP Business Application Studio and Java 21 is not available there, use the Java 17, instead. | |||
| ::: | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Configuring Code Generation for Typed Access {#codegen-config} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe rather put this whole paragraph into the "Building Applications" section?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Order was to do it here. :) I thought that we need introduce new top-level chapter: there is much more stuff that needs to be documented.
|
|
||
| Moreover, it doesn't change the way how event contexts and entities, delivered by CAP, look like. Such interfaces from CAP are always modelled in the default JavaBeans style. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Code Generation Features |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this doc already reflecting the 4.0.0 state regarding defaults of these parameters?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whatever remains available in 4.0 is described, except stuff that is not intended for POM at all.
|
|
||
| - Names from CDS model that are Java keywords are prefixed with `_`. | ||
| - Names from CDS model that use characters that are not valid as Java identifiers, are replaced by `_`. This, however, might lead to a conflicts between names that yield same name in Java. | ||
| - Characters `/` and `$` behave just like `_`: they used to provide camel-cased name and provide better support for models coming from ABAP systems. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
they used to provide camel-cased name and provide better support for models coming from ABAP systems.
Can you clarify that. I am not sure if I understand that sentence.
EDIT: Ah I think I got it, they are not replaced by "" but behave like a "" would. Maybe it would be beneficial to explain how a "_" behaves. This is not explicitly explained here at the moment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I rather use something more generic to avoid deep dives in the implementation details.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well I think it is helpful that these rules are explained. They are very visible and I wouldn't consider it an implementation detail.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To which extent?
| :::warning Check migration guides! | ||
| In major releases of CAP Java, some of these switches can be made new default and some other switches might be removed. This might introduce compile errors | ||
| in your application that needs to be fixed. | ||
| ::: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess this warning is not really required here. We should always document the latest version. All things related to major versions can be mentioned in the migration guides. I don't think we need to emphasize that here explicitly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was intended as a reminder to someone who comes here from search and somehow confused why some switch is no longer mentioned or why they have compile errors now.
Introduces chapter to describe switches in Java Code generator. Previously that was documented in the Maven Plugin. This chapter somewhat repeats that documentation and aims to improve the visibility of said switches.