@PropertyNames/@FactoryProperties could be optional

[drekbour]

If no explicit naming is present via annotation, implicit naming can be used. This should not be a compile warning (some devs are happy for property names to be part of the contract of the class). Perhaps it can be noted in the generated javadoc?.

• Add implicit naming code to BuilderModelProducer for factory-methods which do have properties but do NOT have @FactoryProperties
• Add JavaDoc to StringTemplate templates regarding implicit naming
• Add JavaDoc to StringTemplate templates @linking to source method/constructor which is used by the builder
• Add tests for implicit naming
• Update documentation regarding implicit naming

[mkarneim]

I am not sure if I see the purpose of implicit property names for factory-method parameters (respectively constructor parameters).
At least, if we don't use something like paranamer in PB.

For example, given the following pojo:

@GeneratePojoBuilder
class MyPojo {
  private String firstname;
  private String surname;
  public MyPojo( String firstname, String surname) {
    this.firstname = firstname;
    this.surname = surname;
  }
}

would create a PojoBuilder like this:

class MyPojoBuilder {
  // ...
  public MyPojoBuilder withArg1( String value) {
    // ...
  }
  public MyPojoBuilder withArg2( String value) {
    // ...
  }
  // ...
}

which makes no sense to me.
Probably I just didn't understand your point.

[drekbour]

I'm talking about factory methods, changing from:

    @GeneratePojoBuilder
    @PropertyNames({ "firstname", "surname" })
    public static Contact createContact(String aFirstname, String aSurname) {
      Contact result = new Contact(aSurname, aFirstname);
      return result;
    }

to:

    @GeneratePojoBuilder
    public static Contact createContact(String firstname, String surname) {
      Contact result = new Contact(surname, firstname);
      return result;
    }

If the parameter names are already correct, why does the user need to list them out again (i.e. as per @ConstructorProperties, explicit name mappings are optional). PB should already have full view of these names as it operates on the source so Paranamer isn't required I think.

[mkarneim]

You are right.
The parameter names are accessible during compile time for the annotation processor. I didn't realize that.
So I think we should do this!