MapperFeature.REQUIRE_SETTERS_FOR_GETTERS has no effect

[migel]

Hi, I've tried the code below to serialize properties that have both a getter and a setter. However the output is: {"readonly":1,"readwrite":2} while I expected it to be: {"readwrite":2}.

public class Main {

    public static class DataB {
        private int readonly;
        private int readwrite;

        public DataB() {
            readonly = 1;
            readwrite = 2;
        }

        public int getReadwrite() {
            return readwrite;
        }
        public void setReadwrite(int readwrite) {
            this.readwrite = readwrite;
        }
        public int getReadonly() {
            return readonly;
        }
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper(); 
        mapper.setVisibility(PropertyAccessor.ALL, Visibility.NONE);
        mapper.setVisibility(PropertyAccessor.GETTER, Visibility.PUBLIC_ONLY);
        mapper.setVisibility(PropertyAccessor.SETTER, Visibility.PUBLIC_ONLY);
        mapper.enable(MapperFeature.REQUIRE_SETTERS_FOR_GETTERS);
        DataB dataB = new DataB();
        try {
            String json = mapper.writeValueAsString(dataB);
            System.out.println(json);
        } catch (JsonProcessingException e) {
            // TODO Auto-generated catch block
            e.printStackTrace();
        }
    }

}

[cowtowncoder]

Interesting. Sounds like a bug; I am guessing existence of the matching field might be mistaken as indication of a setter. Which version is this with?

[migel]

2.5.1

[cowtowncoder]

Ok, I can reproduce this. And it does look like problem with a field.

But I'll have to handle this carefully: as per its Javadoc, REQUIRE_SETTERS_FOR_GETTERS does considers fields as well as getter methods ("determines whether getters (getter methods) can be auto-detected if there is no matching mutator (setter, constructor parameter or field) or not").

[migel]

Thanks. If I understand correctly, in this case the matching mutator (private int readonly) is a field but it is marked private so it wasn't suppose to detect this mutator since auto detection it is limited to public setters.

[cowtowncoder]

@migel Yes, for getter action. But for "setter" action lower visibility is accepted. However, you have defined NONE as the baseline, so it should not be discovered even then.

If you want to try setting PropertyAccessor.FIELD directly to Visibility.NONE, although it should not make difference here.

So, yes, I think there is a problem here. I am just not fully sure how to tackle it.

As a work-around on short term you may want to use explicit @JsonIgnore, in case you were blocked.